Top shot show on History

Status
Not open for further replies.
I was happy to see Chris win. I also watched the post-game and thought it was odd that there was absolutely NO mention of Jamie. No mention, no interview, not even any footage other than incidental non-competition around-the-house group video snippets. It was like they wrote him out of the story! What the....? Jamie was a HUGE component of the competition. What's up with that?
 
I’ll be honest and say that I did not watch top shot this year period except for last night. Of that show I only watched the last 15-20 minutes. The Gunny is too good of a shot to miss those plates with a 10-22 at that distance. You do not win multiple National Pistol Championships if you are subject to choking during competition. As for this George fellow missing with the Sharps at that distance I’m not buying it.
 
Nom de Forum said:
What George did was unethical.

Unethical is a bit much. I don’t know his reasons but I’d wager he threw the competition as a way to take a bullet for a buddy. From his behavior on the show it’s pretty clear that if you’re not one of his squad he doesn’t care about you at all; to the point of open hostility if you annoy him. On the other hand it’s possible that if you are one of his squad he doesn’t hesitate to sacrifice for you. There’s nothing unethical about that.

That’s reading quite a lot into short snippets of TV time but it is the kind of behavior that is seen in the military. I didn’t have a very high opinion of him until the last episode but I think it’s unfair to state that all he got out of it was a “warm, fuzzy feeling”. He lost out on a legitimate chance to win 100K. That is a significant sacrifice for a friend; especially one you’ve known for 30 days. And Chris was able to make his own decision regarding George’s actions. Chris could have also deliberately missed or even refused to continue with the competition.
 
Last edited:
Rand made it very clear she thought altruism in any form was wrong because it ultimately demeaned the recipient.

First of all, I'm pretty sure George has never read Rand, or anything more complicated than a comic book. Second of all, I'm pretty sure you've never read Rand because if you did, you'd know that she was only opposed to forced altruism (government redistribution of wealth).

Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. Ayn Rand
 
I take back everything I said about George. In hindsight, I do beleive that they edited the entire season to make him look like a collossal prick, so that it would have the biggest impact at the end. Regardless of what you think about George throwing the shot, Chris earned it in the final round.

Yes, the proceeding discussion about "altruism" from folks like Nom de Forum (my BS meter pegs every time I hear that word) is what I would consider "petty". When I hear that word and see discussions like this I picture over-educated, intellectual blowhards who are good for little more than unconstructive thinking.
 
In reply

DPotvin,

Maybe in George’s mind he thinks what he did is the equivalent of taking a bullet for a buddy, but that is not reality and maybe nothing more that rationalizing to avoid the unpleasant truth. Whatever his motivation, it was not an appropriate action for the situation. I spent enough time in the Army to understand self-sacrifice. Equating George’s actions to taking a bullet for a buddy diminishes true self-sacrifice. George at best made an error in judgement. Yes, Chris could have deliberately missed, but that also would be unethical and a childishly response to an adult situation.

KodiakBeer,

Your comments about George and I are uninformed. I have read Rand and more importantly read between the lines. Do you really think Ayn Rand would approve of George’s actions?! She would certainly think it was a miniscule part of the flawed thinking that leads to forced altruism. Don’t imply I am lying about reading Rand and I will not imply you are a person of limited perspective and childish certainty. I’m ready to lay off the Randian analysis model if everyone else is, as it is not necessary to support the belief that George acted unethically.

CraigC,

Nothing I have written implies Chis did anything wrong or that he did not behave ethically to defeat Brian.

Please believe me this type of discussion of philosophy and motivation is just the type of thing those “over-educated, intellectual blowhards who are good for little more than unconstructive thinking” we call the Founding Fathers would have engaged in. Any discussion that forces the mind to exercise reasoned argument is constructive in sharpening the mind.

What was to be only a point of reference to begin a discussion of George’s actions has unfortunately overshadowed the real heart of the matter: George behaved unethically and denied Chris and all of us the certainty of knowing who really should be the Top Shot.
 
I have read Rand and more importantly read between the lines.

Don't read between the lines. Just read what she wrote.

[I]My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them.[/I]

What would she think of George? George is single and would only blow the money on new guns (his statement), so it was "voluntary" and "non-sacrificial". Rand would call it "good will".

The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance.
 
George missed. Deal with it. Let's see 100k or give it to a guy I've known for less than a month? He missed... That's all folks.

Don't try and romanticize it to make sense in your head. I wouldn't give up a hundred grand for people I've known for years and they wouldn't expect me to - I might loan them some money, but that's it. Lol
 
Nom de Forum said:
Equating George’s actions to taking a bullet for a buddy diminishes true self-sacrifice.

It was a turn of phrase and I do not consider it the equal of literally taking a bullet for someone. If he did do it intentionally , likely I think, then it was a self sacrifice.

Regardless, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Welcome to the High Road. Enjoy your stay.
 
In reply

KodiakBeer,

It is a winner take all competition and not a situation where charity or voluntary, non-sacrificial help is appropriate. George did not just give he also took from Chris. Chris did not have the chance to refuse George’s “good will”, it was forced on him. Many of humanities most harmful mistakes have been made by people certain they are acting with “good will” and doing the right thing without the consent of the recipients. Chris did not voluntarily accept George’s help and George sacrificed Chris’s self-determination without his consent. It is not acting with “good will” when you usurp someone's autonomy. No where does Rand condone forcing others to accept “voluntary”, “non-sacrificial” help. If George had done to me what he did to Chris I would fell like doing to him what he threatened to do to Chis if he did not win. I would have ensured through verbal flogging that he never again was so disrespectful and hope he had the maturity not to escalate it to a physical confrontation I would not back down from. Start reading between the lines KodiakBeer, a whole new universe awaits you.

Ledgehammer,

I don’t necessarily disagree with you that George just missed, but that is not what George implied. I believe other explanations are also plausible. Giving up money to defend your ego is not farfetched for a narcissist. Feigning altruism to defend your ego is also not farfetched for a narcissist.
 
George missed. Deal with it. Let's see 100k or give it to a guy I've known for less than a month? He missed... That's all folks.

Don't try and romanticize it to make sense in your head. I wouldn't give up a hundred grand for people I've known for years and they wouldn't expect me to - I might loan them some money, but that's it. Lol
The Jersey Shore reject missed.
 
I wouldn't pretend to know whether George missed, choked or gave up the opportunity at a chance to win $100k to give that chance to his friend. The fact is George is a certified SNIPER and proved he knows his trade more than once on the show. All of you who think you know what George did or why are both delusional and judgmental. I thought "The High Road" was supposed to be a better class of folk carrying on a better class of conversation. My mistake. :confused:
 
Please believe me this type of discussion of philosophy and motivation is just the type of thing those “over-educated, intellectual blowhards who are good for little more than unconstructive thinking” we call the Founding Fathers would have engaged in. Any discussion that forces the mind to exercise reasoned argument is constructive in sharpening the mind.
Somehow I doubt it but that's a really good try at gaining some credibility. That's exactly the sort of comment I would've expected. Like this discussion, it's nothing more than mental masturbation.

George did not "sacrifice Chris' self determination or usurp his autonomy", he gave him a second chance to earn the prize. Forfeiting his own chances in the process. There's a huge difference between giving somebody something they should've earned, as Thomas Paine said "what we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly", which I would equate to throwing money at a problem that money won't solve, like Haiti; and giving someone nothing more than a chance to prove themselves. Which is what George did, once he decided that Chris needed the money more than himself. Chris still earned it and his children will have the chance at a better life. Which is what every parent wants. Some people just need to catch a break, Chris did.
 
In reply

Verge,

As someone who graduated from Sniper School I can as “a certified SNIPER” say with certainty that what George did on Top Shot in no way proved he knows his trade. Shooting is the easy part of being a sniper and at most only half of the trade. I will give George the benefit of the doubt that he does know his trade.

I don’t think any of us stated we know with certainty what George did. We are only giving opinions of possibilities and conclusions from observations. It is wrong to throw a competition, if George did so he acted unethically. You are being very judgmental yourself. Does staying on “The High Road” mean never voicing honest, logically formed opinions that may upset some people.


CraigC,

You don’t like my opinion so you dismiss it as a gambit for credibility. That is a very weak argument. I am actually happy for Chris’s windfall from an emotional stand-point. I am intellectually disappointed that George could not find a more ethical way to help his friend.
 
The Jersey Shore reject missed.

YUP!... Captain of the fail boat right there. He barely missed... that is NOT throwing it.... as for the sharps, he missed big time and another shooter said the 1st comp that decided captains said it had the softest most hair trigger he has ever felt in his life and it caught him totally off guard.

I think that's exactly what happened to the jerk.

He was a jerk the whole time. He knew the guy less than a month. No way did he just hand over $100k because he felt bad for a guy. Give me a break.

Anyone who believes he REALLY gave it away blows my mind. do you think santa really comes every year too? LOL
 
I think George thought that there was a possibility he couldn't win. Instead of losing, he would rather go out on his own terms. Throwing it for his buddy allowed him to lose and still save face.

It wasn't about altruism, it was about George.
 
Nom,

As a graduate of sniper school you would know, nobody graduates without knowing the trade. If you don't think anyone is stating they know, read KofTH's posts. He sounds pretty certain that he knows as do others. I am not judging, just pointing out the fact that people without the real data are stating conjecture and opinion as fact.

As for your opinion that throwing a contest is immoral, that is your opinion, if that is what happened, my opinion would be the opposite.
 
I am not convinced George threw the Sharps shot, the plate at 25, yes, but the Sharps?? I am unconvinced.

Chris shot the Sharps very well the first time, no reason to believe he couldnt duplicate it later.
 
I do beleive that they edited the entire season to make him look like a collossal prick, so that it would have the biggest impact at the end.


I agree. We saw what they wanted us to see.


George did not just give he also took from Chris. Chris did not have the chance to refuse George’s “good will”, it was forced on him.


If anybody feels the need to force $100k on me, go right ahead.


No one has thought:

The way the script was written Chris wins.

This is TV.


This is probably the most accurate thing said so far. And yes, I know they will say even now that it wasn't. What was one of the first things your parents ever taught you. "Don't believe everything that you see on TV."
 
I agree with the editing.... on this side of the TV we just wont know.

I dont think he threw the sharps shot. It seemed clear to me the 25 ft pistol shot was thrown to get him back in the game and have the deciding shot be the last rifle. I dont think he planned to give it away, he just let him back in the game.

He also commented that he didnt have kids to put through school like the other 2, again, if that was said before it would be a window into what he did... after, maybe not.

I did think he and the others treated Jamie poorly, but again editing may have not shown us why Jamie may have bothered them or maybe there really wasnt a good reason as the show made it seem.
 
It started becoming pretty clear by the end that the producers where trying to manufacture a specific winner. Some of the elimination challenges where blatantly in one of the competitors favor, to the point of being unfair for the other. Granted, the show supposedly promotes the most versatile shooter, but what are the odds of having your pet firearm drop into your lap at the challenge as the other guy stands there looking confused? He still appears to have a chance to the lay TV viewer, but its for appearances sake only.

The producers wanted Jay to win against his opponent to drag out the whole 'military vs. civilian' shtick they had going for a while, so they set up the .22s to favor an olympic style target shooter (like Jay). Next they wanted Jamie to win against Jay, so they gave him a rifle they knew from his application he was very familiar with (not to mention more capable with, since the M1 is a beast and Jay is an itty bitty ol guy). Then finally, they wanted Chris to win against Jamie, so they gave him a shotgun and clay targets to play to his most publicized strength. This whole thing is right out of the Hulk Hogan playbook.

In the end, the other three had very little to do with it. The producers wanted Chris to win because he was the least likely to cast the show in a bad light down the road. Facts are, after Richard Hatch from survivor pulled his little tax stunt, the show took a huge hit in the ratings. Chris has a wife and kids, so is the least likely to pull a crazy stunt and cost the show viewers and, as a direct result, advertising $$$. Him winning is in the best interest of History channel, the show, and its producers.
 
Last edited:
Uncertainty and certainty

The one thing I am certain of is that there will always be uncertainty about what happened in this show. George missed, George threw it, It was scripted are plausible given the information we viewers have. If I had to bet, I think George never expected to miss the first shot, choked on the second, and used a claim of altruism as an ego defense. If he deliberately missed then regardless of motive he behaved unethically. What I am certain of is that while Chris is the "Top Shot", some viewers think he is the "Top Shot*" Much like every season home run champion since Ruth. I hope they have a season of returning Top Shots so Chris has a chance to erase that asterisk.
 
I was happy to see Chris win. I also watched the post-game and thought it was odd that there was absolutely NO mention of Jamie. No mention, no interview, not even any footage other than incidental non-competition around-the-house group video snippets. It was like they wrote him out of the story! What the....? Jamie was a HUGE component of the competition. What's up with that?
I think that, at the time the follow-up show was being filmed, Jamie was deployed over in Afghanistan. And, thus, he was unavailable to participate.

Two additional thoughts:
- Some of the contestants (including Jamie) post over at the History Channel message boards. It's an interesting peek into the life off the camera.

- As has been mentioned, this is television. The drama was played up, and cut together to make the final impact that much greater. If you read the posts from the contestants, or listen to some of their interviews, you get the impression that 90% of the time - or more - people got along swimmingly.

No one is who they appear to be when the *producers* of a show get done with their footage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top