I guess what I'm trying to get at is, why is "Applewood Amulet" considered a great run, "Sforza" a pretty good run, and other runs where better-than-average teams faced a more intense or longer layout (such as "Belle Boyd") considered an average, mediocre, or good run?
Does it come down to the success of the team, the emotional impact or suspense (thrill) of the run/contestants, and the difficulty of the path/rooms? Are the three considered equally? Is one weighted more heavily than the others? Does it have to do with how the contestants were portrayed or how the episode was editing? Is one of the three sometimes neglected or dismissed entirely, and if so, under what circumstances?
Well, I think the most important thing for the level of praise between "Emiliano Zapata" and "Belle Boyd" is the outcome of those runs. "Emiliano Zapata" ended in a win while "Belle Boyd" was a loss. That alone has people leaning towards Emiliano Zapata being the better run just because it ends in a win.
Here is some criteria I see when people critique a temple run:
- Quality of the temple run (Did the team put up a decent effort given their layout and circumstances they had to face?)
- Player performance (Were the players performance in the flawed in comparison with another run?)
- Memorableness (Did something eventful happen in this run or something that stands out over the rest?)
- Excitement factor (Would you want to go back and watch this run again? Or would you watch it one time and not watch it again?)
- Other criteria (Sometimes people take into account for other things. Like for example, the temple win for "Sir Gawain" has wore off a little bit for me because back when Nick GaS was our only source for Legends, they played this temple run like 2-3 times a week it seemed like. Would you want to watch a win that many times?)
Here is how I would compare "Emiliano Zapata" with "Belle Boyd":
- Quality of the temple runI will admit that Leah and Matthew were the better team when it comes to these two runs. They faced an extremely difficult layout and came up close to the Room of the Ancient Warriors. I thought it was amazing how Matthew raced all the way to where Leah was taken out and still made some progress. But Robert and Olivia-Emma also put up a good effort and you have to give Olivia-Emma credit for bringing the artifact out from the other side of the temple with little time on the clock. I will say though that the Belle Boyd team was better.
- Player performance I will give this to Leah and Matthew also. Olivia-Emma did make the mistake of passing the obvious half-pendant, which could've changed the outcome of the temple run if there was not an extra temple guard along her path. But Leah and Matthew's performance wasn't exactly flawless either. Both of them missed vital shortcuts that could've at least gave them the second prize. The temple ending could've been similar to "Henry Morgan" if they didn't take the longest route possible. Plus, as I mentioned above, Olivia-Emma did a great job with getting the artifact out of the temple with such little time.
- Memorableness I am giving this one to Emiliano Zapata easily. There is really nothing that memorable about "Belle Boyd" except that the team had to face a tough layout. I don't even remember "Belle Boyd" half the time even when we are talking about good losses on the show. Meanwhile, Emiliano Zapata is memorable for the nail biter temple ending and quite possibly the closest win on the show.
- Excitement factor This one goes to Emiliano Zapata also. I mean the "Belle Boyd" team put up a good performance and everything, but the Emiliano Zapata win was very exciting because it came down to literally the last second. Runs that come down to the wire are usually more exciting than ones that are won with eased. That is why I don't think runs like "Benzibab" and "Babe the Ox" is that exciting.
- Other criteriaJust for the fact that "Emiliano Zapata" ends in a win is a good enough reason to prefer this run over "Belle Boyd". I am not saying that all wins are better than all losses, but this one is great even though the team was not as good as "Belle Boyd". Just like I will pick "Annie Taylor" over "Belle Boyd" because its not always about temple layouts and player speeds.
In the end, both temple runs are great and I like both of them. But I prefer "Emiliano Zapata" most of the time over "Belle Boyd". Not to say Belle Boyd was a bad temple run. And it does receive its fair share of attention and praise too. I mean when we are talking about some of the best losses on the show, we usually talk about Belle Boyd. When it comes down to it though, we prefer Emiliano Zapata mostly due to the outcome. Besides, I think its more easier and fair to compare "Belle Boyd" to other temple losses than to a temple win.
