Talk:Brad Rutter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

Start

This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

It s the 25th but this has info about the 26th

Somebody forgot to press the "Save Page" button after changes were made to update the page, so I had to fortune to press the button and now it's new. -Amit

[edit] Rutter's correct winnings amount

There seems to be a conflict of how much Brad Rutter's winnings are from the UTOC. Since he received a bye to the second round, he didn't get the $15,000 of those winners of the first round. Therefore, if you add it up, his winning total in the UTOC is $2,100,000 and his overall winnings is $3,255,102. If Jeopardy's web site has those figures, then it has to be right. If Ken Jennings didn't receive the money from all those rounds he received a bye, then neither did Brad. http://www.jeopardy.com/announcement_20050525Final_PHl8P.php

--Tubutler 02:59, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Alex Trebex did state on the show that all contestants with a first round bye received the $15,000. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 14:04, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why the figure $3,255,102 was mentioned twice on Jeopardy's press release if it were wrong. Someone mentioned on the UTOC talk pages that those in the Nifty Nine who LOST in the second round received the $15,000 plus their money from the second round, but those who WON in the second round didn't receive that bye money. Then again, Jeopardy's web site, that poster, and I could be wrong... --Tubutler 03:05, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you change $3,270,102 to $3,255,102, you might as well change Ken's figure from $2,522,700 to $2,520,700, which is what the Jeopardy! site lists. --68.194.108.16 19:35, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Authenticity check: A search reveals that the phrase "regarded by many" appears in the text. Is the phrase a symptom of a dubious statement? Could a source be quoted instead? Perhaps the "many" could be identified? Might text be edited to more genuinely reflect specific facts?
Wetman

If you eliminate the "regarded by many", you're saying he was the best Jeopardy player of all time. He won more money than any other, so there is a colorable claim, but Ken Jennings won more games, so he has a colorable claim as well. Until recently, a champion had a maximum of 5 days, perhaps to be followed by a Tournament of Champions, so it's as hard to compare today's winners with winners in the past as it is to compare Hank Aaron with Babe Ruth. And the game itself has changed; the Art Fleming years are "regarded by many" to have used more difficult questions.

The "regarded by many" statement doesn't mean Brad is a better player; it means he is highly popular, which is not really in question, is it? The folks who were clerks with him at Coconuts say Brad keeps his parents' names, his street address, his birth date, and his email address confidential because so many women, both married and single, want to bear a kid with a great mind. (I didn't want to clear up the ambiguity about his birth year because the documents that verify that date would also provide data he's rather not publicize.) ClairSamoht 01:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "It was a meaningless situation, unlike the other two"

I removed the word "meaninglessly", [1], and User:271828182 restored it. [2] Can someone explain to me why the word "meaninglessly" belongs there? Dionyseus 04:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure. It was the second game of a two-day match. Rutter bet only enough to win the two-day match, whereas Newhouse bet everything he had on that day. If the second game's scores had meant anything in-themselves, Rutter could have bet more and beaten Newhouse's daily score just as he did his cumulative total. 271828182 15:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. Dionyseus 15:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grand Slam

He lost.... Why is he "as of this moment" 1-1. Is he going to come back after being eliminated? Isn't he done? TheHYPO 17:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is single elimination and you were just the first to edit the entry subsequently. Relax, bro ... just outdated information. :) Josephgrossberg 22:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)