The Amazing Race > The Amazing Race Discussion
Why the Amazing Race has lost its magic
Caelestor:
apskip's list also does not include unaired FFs.
Nowadays, the first-place teams see the FF and go for it, since they won't get another chance. Teams behind them will think they can't go for it because someone earlier would have gone for it. Hardly good strategy.
The race can function fine without the FF. As we saw in TAR 15, however, it gave M+C not only a win in the first of the Dubai legs, but a big enough lead to arrive in first place again the next leg, despite M+T's better performance.
apskip:
--- Quote from: revengefullycreative on December 25, 2009, 02:39:33 PM ---Apskip, there were 2 Fast Forwards in TAR13. Those include the Sky Tower one that Ken/Tina won in Auckland, and then the Korduk-eating FF that Nick/Starr earned later on during the final run as part of them winning 6 out of the final 7 legs for the win.
--- End quote ---
revengefullycreative,
The book lists both of those for AR13; you are right. I just can't do 1 + 1 = 2 and get the right answer every time. Thanks, as I have corrected my earlier post for the AR13 line.
theschnauzers:
In TAR 1 to TAR 4, a Fast Forward was available for every leg, except the final leg, with the proviso that if all remaining teams had used a fast forward at the beginning of a leg before the second to final leg, then the FF was no longer available as of that point for the remainder of the Race.
On average, the FF was used about one-half of the time in thpse early seasons. The even odder thing is that since that time, the FF has continued to be used about one-half of the time. (I have the numbers filed away somewhere but I'm not in the rush to get precise at the moment.)
The primary reason why the FF is only offered once or twice a Race now is financial. The cost for some unused FF was significant, and that's one reason why their frequency was reduced. The problem is that it also changed the strategic value of th FF, and for several seasons after the change, the lead teams would always take the FF. At this point, it's rare for any team other than a lead team to take a FF, and it has ended up offering little strategic value. If it were to completely disappear, I don't think its absence would have an impact any more.
The penalties for the NELs and the U-Turns are more problematic for me. I'd rather be rid of the NEL penalties altogether, and I don't like the element of the U-Turn that smacks of the Yield, and I totally hated the Yield and was happy to see its demise.
Caelestor:
I don't like NEL penalties, but I can't stand the bunching after an NEL that can save some last-place teams which deserved to be eliminated earlier. The TBC, if used properly, can fix that.
The U-turn, if it was available more often, would provide an extra element of strategy.
Dånooky:
--- Quote from: Caelestor on December 25, 2009, 10:41:49 PM ---I don't like NEL penalties, but I can't stand the bunching after an NEL that can save some last-place teams which deserved to be eliminated earlier. The TBC, if used properly, can fix that.
The U-turn, if it was available more often, would provide an extra element of strategy.
--- End quote ---
I'd think that to make the U-Turn more user-friendly, they should include the number tags the Yield had. At least then, the teams would have more things to base their decision on.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version