Tyson Apostol Revealed Russell Hantz Is Too Mean To Winner Survivor

Among Survivor fans who’ve watched every season and know who the first player to be medically evacuated was, Tyson Apostol is one of the most popular players ever. Beloved enough that Jeff Probst keeps bringing him back, Tyson has played with some of the best winners over the four seasons he has competed in.

Since Tyson has made so many appearances on the popular reality show, he also got to play with Russell Hantz. Of course, Russell wants new fans who are figuring out which seasons to watch first to believe he is one of the best Survivor players ever. However, Tyson perfectly explained why Russell could never win the game.

Tyson Apostol Explained Why Russell Hantz Never Won Survivor

When Russell Hantz played during Survivor: Samoa and Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains, he accomplished something truly incredible. During those two seasons that were filmed back-to-back, Russell proved that he was a cutthroat player who outworked anyone he played with during either season.

As a result of everything Russell was willing and able to do, he managed to make it to the final tribal council during Survivor: Samoa and Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains. However, Russell notably lost during both seasons, and he wasn’t even close to getting enough votes to win either time.

That has resulted in a lot of people talking about what it was about how Russell played that made him lose both times. Fortunately for anyone who isn’t sure of why Russell has never won Survivor, Tyson Apostol once perfectly explained the reason.

During Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains, Tyson got voted out relatively early in the season. In fact, Tyson got voted out early enough that he didn’t make it to the jury.

That meant that Tyson didn’t get to vote on whether Russell won that season or see how things progressed after he left until it aired on TV.

Even though Tyson only got to witness how Russell played for 15 days, he had a strong opinion of him. After getting voted out of Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains, Tyson explained during an interview what the flaw in how Russell played the game was.

20:07

Related

Exclusive: Richard Hatch Speaks About His Role In Creating Survivor Being Erased

Survivor’s original supervillain Richard Hatch talks about the role he played in creating the show as it is today.

After the episode of Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains that featured Tyson’s exit aired, he was interviewed by People.

During that interview, Tyson was asked to weigh in on Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains’ biggest feud, “Boston” Rob Mariano vs. Russell. In response, Tyson praised them both for having skills in the game, but then he explained why he believed Russell would never win Survivor.

To be clear, Tyson went on to tell People that he personally didn’t have a grudge against Russell. “I have nothing against him.”

Tyson then went on to elaborate on why he believed that Russell wasn’t capable of winning Survivor. As Tyson explained, the way Russell behaves makes the people he plays with hate him.

“There isn’t a single person more disliked by contestants. The name of the game is slitting throats with finesse and he doesn’t have that. He can get to the end but there’s big difference between first and second.”

To Tyson’s point, by the time of his People interview, Russell had only played Survivor once, and he came in second place.

Related

Jeff Probst Revealed That Survivor Changed Because Of The Official Podcast

Jeff Probst explained that Survivor has changed because of the official podcast he hosts.

Unfortunately for Russell, Tyson isn’t the only person who has expressed the sentiment that he can’t win the game.

In fact, arguably the most famous Survivor player of all time made an extremely similar argument to Tyson.

After “Boston” Rob Mariano’s Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains exit episode aired, he was interviewed by UGO in April 2010. During that conversation, Boston Rob explained that the flaw with Russell’s game was that he regularly made the jury members angry. “Like last week, when we were sitting on the beach, myself, Courtney and Sandra and he says right to their face, “One of these two can go.'”

“Boston” Rob then argued that the way Russell treated his tribemates proved that he didn’t think long-term. Interestingly enough, “Boston” Rob also brought up the mistakes he made during Survivor: All-Stars and claimed Russell didn’t learn from them.

“I mean clearly he’s thinking day to day, he’s not thinking for the long haul… I mean you really have to think about the game in terms of not only your immediate future but long-term strategy. I kinda feel like he took a page out of my playbook with how I played
Survivor All-Stars
, which is a good strategy to get you far, and it can even get you to the end, but ultimately it’s not a good strategy to win the game because you burn those bridges, and you’re gonna need those bridges when you come back. Without it, you’re gonna end up drowning. I think he’s gonna have a problem with that.”

Jeff Probst Once Argued That Russell Hantz Should Have Won Survivor: Samoa

Over the years, there have been many Survivor winners that some fans argued didn’t deserve to win. That makes sense, since fans are going to have strong opinions. However, it is weird that Jeff Probst once argued that someone other than Natalie White should have won Survivor: Samoa.

25:06

Related

Exclusive: Jonathan Penner Revealed The Jeff Probst That Survivor Fans Don’t Get To See

Survivor’s Jonathan Penner exclusively told TheThings about who Jeff Probst is when he isn’t on camera.

In December 2009, Jeff wrote an article for Entertainment Weekly about the finale of Survivor: Samoa. In the opening paragraph of that article, Jeff stated that he was writing the article in his personal capacity and not as Survivor’s host before he called out Survivor: Samoa’s jury.

To be clear, Jeff then argued that Natalie White deserved to win Survivor: Samoa since she got the most votes. However, Jeff then wrote that he thought it was ridiculous that Russell didn’t win.

“This season was so lopsided in terms of one person [Russell] completely dominating the game that to not give him the money and the title is a bit silly.”

Still not through, Jeff then wrote in the EW article that if he was on the jury, his vote would have gone to Russell to win.

“If I were playing
Survivor
, no matter how much I despised someone, if they kicked my a** in the game I would give it to them. Period. Outwit. Outplay. Nobody outwitted or outplayed Russell. Not even close.”

Near the end of the article, Jeff wrote about why Natalie won Survivor: Samoa and expressed empathy for Russell. “I do not believe the jury voted for Natalie, I believe the jury voted against Russell. Russell was clearly upset last night and I think a lot of people understand why that would be. He played a very risky and creative game and he wanted to be acknowledged.”

In this long-running reality competition show, sixteen people are split into two tribes and must survive off the land in various rural locales. Each week, they compete in challenges for resources, luxuries, or immunity — and each week, one person is voted out by their teammates, losing their chance at being the sole Survivor.

Release Date

May 31, 2000

Cast

Jeff Probst

Seasons

47

Network

CBS

Showrunner

Jeff Probst

Expand