“Grand Slam”: Readers Live Blog Tonight! (August 5th)

05 Aug

Posted by Alex Davis as GSN, Grand Slam, Reader Input, Spoilers

I just feel like clearing this up: In the last post, I never said I didn’t like Grand Slam. I think it could get boring if there’s a very uneven match. But beyond that, this is GSN’s best show in a while.

To save from people not wanting to know results, please post all commentary for the August 5th episode of Grand Slam here. Tonight’s matches include Brad Rutter VS Amy Kelly (Lucky Super Lingo winner) and Ed Toutant VS Leszek Pawlowicz. I think we all know that Brad Rutter is going to kick Amy Kelly’s ass so hard that it’ll take her a few days to find it (No offense, Amy). However, Toutant VS Pawlowicz is going to be very interesting. I see we have Mr. Pawlowicz commenting recently, and we’d love to hear his thoughts about this episode. Please feel free, anyone, to comment about today’s episode here. Grand Slam airs weekends at 7PM ET on GSN.

32 Responses

Ryan
1
August 5th, 2007 at 8:27 pm

Some of the questions were displayed on screens for the contestants, but only in the math and words section, and only where it was really necessary to see the information to answer the question. For most of the questions, you had to answer based on the question as read.

I’m not Leszek (though it’s an honor to see him comment on this show), but I’m opposed to that idea. It’s luck of the draw. I assume that they try their best to make the questions of equal length, but the only person who’d really know that is Pat Kiernan (or the questioner, as he’s now known). I’m fine with the current system.

And a congratulations to Mr. Pawlowicz on his thorough trouncing of Ed Toutant today.
Ryan
2
August 5th, 2007 at 8:32 pm

Well, Amy was an absolute disappointment today. I knew it would be an absolute massacre, but Brad had over 2 minutes on his clock when Amy’s time ran out! Disgraceful, but she almost beat him in Numbers and Logic.

As for Toutant vs. Pawolwicz, our commentor was a very astute thinker today, and I have to say, Ed panicked a bit. I was calling the answers out at home, and even I did better than Ed! Leszek’s going to have a more interesting matchup ahead of him in either Legler or Spangenberg.
dc
3
August 5th, 2007 at 8:54 pm

Sorry about posting this in the non-spoiler thread…

I did a small analysis of a few rounds, and, while there are some inequities in average question length time, usually it never averaged out more than 1-1.5 seconds average per question more for one player over another, and in general, a player getting questions wrong doomed them much more than anything involving question asking length, so, I’m in general fine with the way it is now. Really the only place it would make a big difference would be two very evenly matched players where neither missed many or any questions, so, the 3-4 second difference would basically be minimal (of course unless that was in the final round, where its do or die).

And congrats to Leszek as well, although Ed didn’t help himself with some big mental breakdowns during the game.
Alex Davis
4
August 5th, 2007 at 9:47 pm

“I was calling the answers out at home, and even I did better than Ed! Leszek’s going to have a more interesting matchup ahead of him in either Legler or Spangenberg.”

I have to completely agree; I was doing just as well somehow. Ed really had a breakdown and it showed. Leszek was absolutely amazing. I’d be afraid of him if I were playing too. If he comes on again, I hope he can tell us how his experience is. This seems incredibly tense to play.
Rob
5
August 5th, 2007 at 10:25 pm

After two shows…

1. Media Life should go play “Candyland” and let the adults continue to enjoy “Grand Slam” in peace.
2. If viewers aren’t shouting answers at the TV set when they watch this, I don’t know what game show format will engage them.
3. Dennis Miller is Dennis Miller. He can’t help trying to put himself over at the expense of the game. I did enjoy Amanda poking fun at him tonight.
4. After the tournament finishes, I’m begging Leszek to write a guest blog on his experience. Actually, as you can see, I’m begging now… you get the idea… :)

As to the game play…

We knew Brad Rutter was going to run over Amy Kelly, but that was actually painful.

And while I figured Leszek was a good bet to win, the fact that he won by as large of a margin as he did was a bit surprising. The fact that the tournament was seeded on earnings makes Leszek the most live #13 seed this side of a CAA team in the NCAA tournament… :) yes, that was my attempt at a tortured Milleresque simile.

At this point, I’d have to figure the Final Four to be Rutter vs. Pawlowicz and Jennings vs. Carpenter… with Leszek the only person standing in the way of a Jeopardy-champion showdown on August 26. But, because we’d all like to see it, I’ll predict the Rutter-Jennings final. Because I *am* Captain Obvious. :)
Woodie B.
6
August 5th, 2007 at 10:44 pm

Tonight was a much better show. Dennis had me laughing more, especially when he commentated about Ralph Lauren’s real last name. I cannot wait for the Thom McKee/John Carpenter match-up next weekend!
David (AKA John Goodman)
7
August 5th, 2007 at 10:59 pm

Great show tonight! I felt pretty bad for the Lingo girl. Rutter literaly killed, gutted, filleted, and made hamburgers out of her. And Miller didn’t get on my nerves too much.

One thing that king of pissed me off was Pawlowicz’s comment on why he doesn’t compete in other trivia contests. He said something like “I’m always going to win and I’d just be showing off.” Although that’s probably true, he sounded pretty cocky and full of himself, which is why I was rooting for Ed.

Anyway, cool show, and I’ll watch next weekend for sure.
lobster
8
August 6th, 2007 at 12:10 am

The one thing I don’t understand is why Pat Kiernan — a relatively recognized game show personality by those who watch game shows at least– is not only hidden from view, but not even so much as mentioned! Not that it’s essential that we see him, but is it possible that Dennis Miller demanded such top billing to where the mere mention of who calls the questions threatens his place in the show at all? Hard to imagine..

..or perhaps that’s how they did it in the UK and they’re just trying to keep with the format?

:D LObs
Leszek Pawlowicz
9
August 6th, 2007 at 12:29 am

I haven’t seen the show, so I can’t respond fully to John Goodman’s comment. But I believe the context in which I answered that question related to NTN trivia and similar competitions. On the very few occasions I’ve done that in the past (and it’s been quite a few years since the last time), I do win in the local venue, and usually rank top 20 nationwide every round. But it’s just not that important to me to see my name up in lights, so I don’t do it. So not wanting to show off makes me cocky, but beating up on the local competition would make me humble? I just don’t see that.

I might also add that I have my share of losses under my belt (two failures in the Ring of Fire on Millionaire, a loss in the HistoryIQ finals, a loss in the first round in the Jeopardy UTOC). So I’m well aware that I can lose at any level of serious competition, and the “Grand Slam” competitive level was as serious as they come. I’ll also say that, having lost to Ed Toutant in the 2004 Smarty Pants competition, and know he was really tough, I came into the first round fully prepared to lose. Ditto for the second round as well.
David (AKA John Goodman)
10
August 6th, 2007 at 1:39 am

I never said that you were cocky, I said that you sounded cocky. I don’t know if you’re cocky or not, but it sounded that way to me the way you were presented on “Grand Slam.”
Rick M.
11
August 6th, 2007 at 7:38 am

A game show making people look cocky? What a concept! It should come as no surprise to anyone if GS is taking a page out of Survivor’s book, which is one of the greatest examples of how to make people look like what they’re not that’s ever been.

It seems that every game show now requires some sort of animosity between the contestants, even if they have to manufacture it via editing to make it work. I’m sure all of us at one point have said or done things that make us look cocky or self-important, and had there been a television camera around, I’m certain the producers wouldn’t have thought twice about using it in their show.

But back to GS and my nitpick, IMHO I have to agree with lobster above, that Pat Kiernan needs more airtime, at least as much as he would get during WSOPC. Then again, I freely admit all I know of the show is what I’ve seen here in the good old USA, and I know nothing of the gameplay or traditions of the original GS.
Erskine Thompson
12
August 6th, 2007 at 8:16 am

So, am I to understand then, that a “Grand Slam” contestant should go on national television and be presented as someone who expects to lose? Give me a break! For the most part, all of these competitors have succeeded at the highest level of knowledge competition, and if they want to blow their own horns, I have no problem with that. I have often said, the difference between arrogance and confidence is whether you can back it up. All of these players can back up what they say, and if, for instance, Mr. Pawlowicz says he finds smaller quiz contests boring because he almost always wins, I’m fine with that, because he’s probably right. Conversely, if *I* were to say that, I’d be quickly called on it, and almost as quickly destroyed by someone who is a much better player than I.

In response to Rick M.’s statement about Pat Kiernan, he seems to always fall into the “unseen question reader” role, just as he did on “World Series of Pop Culture” and “Studio 7.” He got a little more face time on this year’s WSoPC, but during the first one, he was hardly seen at all, just like “Grand Slam.” Maybe it just adds to the mystique of the contest, or maybe Kiernan just likes it that way.
David (AKA John Goodman)
13
August 6th, 2007 at 9:50 am

Sorry. I just don’t root for egotistical contestants, and Pawlowicz came off to me as a bit egotistical. I’m always going to root for the person I think I can relate to the most, and right now who I’m rooting for is Brad Rutter.
Leszek Pawlowicz
14
August 6th, 2007 at 11:21 am

Well, whatever - think what you like. Perhaps if they had aired the part of the interview where I said that I thought it highly unlikely that I would win, or the parts where my friends say that I’ve never made a big deal of my gameshow experiences, you might have gotten a different impression.
David (AKA John Goodman)
15
August 6th, 2007 at 11:58 am

Well, after having re-watching you on “Grand Slam,” and having learned more about you, I’ll relent. I still don’t know if you’re cocky or not, but I don’t think you are. You seem to have a lot of respect for the other “Grand Slam” competitors, and you certainly looked like you were intimidated by Ed Toutant (even though you were creaming him). Plus, the fact that you responded to my post I think is pretty cool. I still think that your comment made you sound like a know-it-all, but I guess it would be hard to truthfully respond to the question without sounding like one. But anyway, thank you for reponding to my posts, and good luck on the show.
David (AKA John Goodman)
16
August 6th, 2007 at 11:59 am

^Whoops, I meant “having rewatched.”
Alex Davis
17
August 6th, 2007 at 12:11 pm

I saw no cockiness at all. What I saw was confidence. Cockiness and confidence are two totally different things. Mr. Pawlowicz was chosen out of tens of thousands of game show contestants from all time and chosen to be one of the top 16 players ever. Even if there was a small air of cockiness on him (I felt awareness of the situation and confidence, not cockiness), it is well deserved. For his track record he deserves to have some and I’m shocked people with such high status in the game show world aren’t more cocky. I’m not even understanding seeing any cockiness at all, to be perfectly honest.
David (AKA John Goodman)
18
August 6th, 2007 at 12:33 pm

It guess it was just another case of me over analyzing something small and insignificant. Still though, that was only a small nitpick I had. It was a nice breath of fresh air seeing 2 guys who are equally intelligent battle each other after Rutter’s extremely inevitable win in the first half.
lobster
19
August 6th, 2007 at 1:24 pm

Clearly the “cockiness” thing is just a silly part of them trying to make the show more interesting — just like on WSOPC (a few overtones of which are present on GS, as its also produced by Embassy Row), there was an awful lot of smack-talking, but it was obviously playful, and I doubt anyone at home thought to themselves “man, these people are ASSES!”.. Why can’t the same be seen here? The little soundbytes of Ken Jennings vs Victor Lee are good examples of how they were trying to PLAYFULLY exhibit game show bravado.. And in that regard, I found Mr. Pawlowicz’s statement to be pretty funny personally.. which might be why they chose to keep that quote in the edit.

LObs
Ryan
20
August 6th, 2007 at 2:20 pm

I did not see a single shred of cockiness in Leszek. He’s a very humble competitor (and a good one at that. Ed Toutant did pick hhim to win it all before they even competed!) He’s going to be a real threat to the Legler/Spangenberg winner. I could see him in the semis!
dc
21
August 6th, 2007 at 9:22 pm

Yeah, I’m 2 for 4 so far (picked the top 4 seeds to win first round, although I did say that I wouldn’t be surprised at all with Leszek beating Toutant, so, maybe give me 2 1/2 picks. I didn’t give Michelle any chance, so, hats off to her).

I’ll stick with my picks for the rest of the way, although McKee/Carpenter will be a barnburner I think.
Ogi Ogas
22
August 7th, 2007 at 12:46 am

I thought Lezsek and Ed’s game was riveting, despite L’s sizable time spread at the finale. I was always surprised at the size of L’s leads at the end of each round, because I felt Ed was playing a pretty tight game throughout, other than his switch-switch-pass gaffe. Ed’s performance would’ve been enough to knock out many other contestants. But L had ice in his veins and flames in his brain and never flinched on the dance floor.

Personally, I found Lezsek to be an extremely modest and grounded person, though I would’ve liked him even if he announced he had the fattest neurons in the room.

Some of the questions are definitely longer than others, but since there’s a single question list for each round (not for each contestant), it all balances out fairly (or randomly, depending on your philosophical bent). Besides, contestants have two techniques available to handle interminable phrasings: pass it or answer before Kiernan finishes. If you pass, you get the answer immediately (Pat doesn’t finish the question). Switching is far worse: you can’t switch until the full question is read, and by then the damage is done.
Ed Toutant
23
August 7th, 2007 at 4:07 am

A friend sent me a link to this board and said people were talking about me, so I guess I might as well get in on the action. I don’t know whether most people here are rational folks or crackpots, but if Leszek and Ogi think it’s safe to go into the water, I’ll dive in as well.

I’m surprised to learn that people here think I played poorly, or “panicked” or had a “breakdown.” I thought I played very well, other than a few slips, and I was mostly pleased with my performance, if not the final result. But no one can afford to make any mistakes against Leszek when he is at the top of his game. His final statistics put him over 90% correct in that match, and you might not realize how remarkable that was until after Grand Slam is over and you see how that ranks against all the other games. My accuracy was around 75%, and I think that will also rank in the upper tier of all performances. I won the final round by 11 seconds, so I felt pretty good about that. Gosh, I wonder how much better I could have been without my panic and breakdown. In this format, a 50 second win is within the expected range for evenly matched opponents. I’m sure Leszek would agree that if we played each other ten times, we’d each win our share, and his respect is good enough for me.

As for the perceived cockiness of any of the players, it just never happened. I see more cockiness posted above in this thread than I ever saw from any of the 16 Grand Slam contestants. There was an abundance of respect, camaraderie, and support among all of the contestants. Trash talk and cockiness are the feckless tools of insecure losers, and no one on the show fell into that category.

Thanks to everyone here for providing your perspective. It’s good to know what other people are thinking. In case you’re interested, I posted more detailed postgame comments earlier tonight on the Ken Jennings message board.

Ed
Ryan
24
August 7th, 2007 at 4:07 am

Thank you for that, Mr. Ogas. Another contestant’s opinion certainly trumps the opinion of a viewer who only saw the edited version.
Ryan
25
August 7th, 2007 at 4:12 am

Mr. Toutant, it appears we posted at the same time, and I have to say that it just seemed to be portrayed as a bit of a panic and a breakdown from the viewer’s end. I didn’t mean to insult you earlier in this thread, I really didn’t, but the fact also that you were up against such a strong player in Leszek certainly could also construe it that way.

I apologize again if I was a part of the cockiness earlier in this thread that you mentioned.
David Howell
26
August 7th, 2007 at 8:10 am

The UK episodes were primarily hosted by Carol Vorderman, who had gained a very significant reputation for her intelligence and particularly mathematical ability from Countdown, which she still co-hosts. Also present on analytical duties was James Richardson, who was known for his coverage of Italian soccer that aired on Channel 4 at the time. The questioner was an unknown, Nick Rowe, and was the single best part of the show.

The worst part was that big leads would be established unexpectedly and wouldn’t come down in the final, and it sounds like this was an example.

Seeding by winnings is interesting. I don’t think we did that, mostly because an awful lot of our contestants came from Fifteen-to-One or Countdown where there are no cash prizes. I think it probably undervalues the Jeopardy! champions and overvalues the Millionaire players, but that’s mostly because this game, being time-based, is far closer to the former format than the latter. Obviously, an awful lot of the big winners on Millionaire will have cut their teeth in quizzes that run at a much faster pace, but I still think it might be significant.

Good point from Ogi regarding the questions, I’m almost positive we did the same; it’s random variation that will cancel out reasonably well most of the time, and allows for much more diversity in questions. It’s a problem, sure, but this is the least-bad way of dealing with it.

McKee/Carpenter will be fascinating. I’d say McKee’s got the edge given that he proved his consistency by winning game after game after game, whereas Carpenter has two big appearances and that’s about it. But Carpenter’s the only person ever to run through the 15-question stack on Millionaire without a lifeline anywhere in the world to my knowledge - sure, he probably had one that was too easy, but no lifelines whatsoever is still quite something. Also, TTD questions weren’t the toughest. I think it’s going to come down to Carpenter’s performance on the day, as McKee is pretty consistent.

Seeing the percentage of correct answers will be fascinating. I wish I had similar numbers for the UK show too…
Alex Davis
27
August 7th, 2007 at 9:50 am

I should specify, Mr. Toutant. I don’t think you played poorly, persay. At least from my view it looked like you were a bit jumbled because of the incredible speed and tension of it.

The clock is what makes this show interesting. Honestly, Jeopardy! and Weakest Link contestants will have that advantage against Millionaire and Twenty-One contestants. That’s why I wasn’t completely shocked Michelle Kitt won (just shocked who she won against). At least from my view, it looked like you were a bit nervous and under the pressure of the clock. That math question really screwed you over big time. Anyway, trust me, it’s safe to be here. We usually eliminate the dummies and get rid of their comments. Please feel free to comment as much as you want. It’ll be taken with the utmost respect, honor, and responded with intelligence. We expect this from every member which is why we’ve cracked down and really disallowed idiotic comments in recent time.
Steve H.
28
August 7th, 2007 at 2:08 pm

I didn’t see any really cocky attitude from either person. And honestly, I think Ed did alright (except for that one math question where he lost about 12 seconds because he didn’t realize it was his turn). The stats though didn’t lie. Leszek just was on his “A” game.

This show is great. Dennis Miller’s commentary seems a bit superfluous, but he’s being himself, and Amanda Byram is just the perfect person to put him in his place.
lobster
29
August 7th, 2007 at 3:12 pm

eh, I could do without Miss ‘manda .. I think she’s about as pointless as Shandi is on Lingo, just another pretty face that offers obvious commentary as if she’s a super-fan. A thousand bucks says she’s never watched game shows before this gig came along :D .. IF they REALLY wanted some true valid color commentary, they should have recruited an actual game show fan who likely would have actually SEEN Ed Toutant’s Millionaire performance as it happened, and perhaps even Thom McKee’s TTD run, hundreds of which are easily located online.. Maybe then the banter could actually be valid and interesting.. This girl is fed the info and it doesn’t come off as real :D

Of course, most fellow game show nerds ain’t too purrty :D .. but, really, though, isn’t the obligatory pretty girl stuff kinda tiring now?

LObs
MrTVAMFM
30
August 7th, 2007 at 9:53 pm

I wonder if I should send Michael Davies $5 for bringing intelligence back to television. “Grand Slam” was an extremely riveting set of programs over the weekend, and I’ll watch the second previously aired program Wednesday night; I think I’ll be busy at 8 Eastern watching Davies’ other new enterprise. I had seen the YouTube clip of the British version of “GS” and was looking forward to this, no matter what the dipthong at Media Life opined.

I was a friend of Doak Fairey when we both lived in Myrtle Beach (before his troubles with the legal system) and he kept talking about Leszek this, Leszek that. I was hooked on “History IQ” (great theme, great host, great everything) and watched this man when he was a contestant. I have never seen performances on a game or quiz show like that and I even applauded a recorded program. It was the 10-run rule, throwing in the towel and any 1989 Atlanta Braves game, all rolled into one. I thought for sure he was going to win the $250K, but no.

I know none of these people personally, but before the round of 16 unfolded, I had already picked Leszek Pawlowicz to win it all. I still do. Having said that, I only hope I have not put the mojo on a recorded video product …:)
Intelligentfan777
31
August 7th, 2007 at 10:15 pm

Great to hear from some of the competitors here. Grand Slam, simply put, is great television. To see these competitors smack-talk and engage in intellectual combat is what T.V. needs more of, there is a lot of it on T.V., but the truth is, for the benefit of us all, you can never have too much of it.

I’m making this quick because I am out of breath after seeing one of the most exciting game show premieres I’ve ever seen! Which is appropriately, another Michael Davies product, The Power Of 10!
Don
32
August 12th, 2007 at 11:07 pm

Anyone else notice that the “correct” answers the moderator gives for some of the algegra questions are WRONG???? On the show 8/12, there was a question that was somethinglike “what is y in the equation 16 + 4y = 120?” and the moderator said Y was a small number (I think he said 4) whereas the obvious correct answer has to be a much larger number (26 in this example). Earlier this week, I recall a similar equation in which the “correct” answer given was obviously WRONG. I don’t think I could have misread the equations twice — and in both cases, the (wrong) answer given was a small number.

This really undermines the credibility of the show. The contestants who got these questions should get another chance.