Jeff Probst revealed his picks for the Survivor Mount Rushmore — His Choices Spark Major Fan Debate!

It’s been a hot, dry season of Survivor so far, but a Survivor storm has been brewing off the island recently courtesy of the On Fire With Jeff Probst podcast. On the Oct. 22 episode, Probst asked Survivor: Cambodia champion Jeremy Collins (who acts as an On Fire cohost this season) if Parvati Shallow — who won Survivor: Micronesia and recently won Australian Survivor in a 16-day season — counted as a two-time winner.

“Listen, I don’t think so,” replied Jeremy. “In my Survivor world, I say she has one and a half wins. It’s a good win. Survivor Australia is a good one. But it’s not the same as Survivor U.S. It’s not the same.”

Suffice it to say, Parv Nation rose up en masse, taking Jeremy to task for his opinion, with Parvati herself commenting on Instagram, “A couple of straight men trying to discredit a woman… get a new move boys.”

Also jumping to Parvati’s defense were Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang on their Las Culturistas podcast, with Rogers noting, “I don’t think so, honey. Jeff Probst, you’re not gonna get away with calling Parvati Shallow a one-and-a-half time winner of Survivor. She won two times. She won Micronesia, and you know that. And she just won Australian Survivor, which is, I’m gonna say it, not only a more difficult version of Survivor, but a better produced version of Survivor. American Survivor, you better get it together because they are lapping you, they are outclassing you around the world. Do not play with me about Parv.”

To which Yang chimed in, “Don’t f— with Parv.”

Rogers than continued: “Jeff, I’ve got a lot to say about the amount of twists in the show. I’m a diehard fan of the show for years, and I just, I don’t think it’s getting better. So for you to pick on one of the great iconic winners of the show, I think because she went and did Traitors and that pisses you off. Don’t show that you’re insecure, Jeff. Because I will get you on this podcast. I don’t think so, honey. Nothing but respect for the queen, Parvati. Love ya.”

The only problem is, Probst never actually offered any sort of public opinion on the matter, a fact he pointed out while replying to the controversy on the newest episode of On Fire.

“Somehow, Jeremy’s answer, his own opinion as a player, got attributed to me,” Probst responds on his own podcast. “And now I’m the one who said that Parvati’s win doesn’t count. I didn’t say it. I don’t even have an opinion. And if you think that was a leading question and I was hoping Jeremy would answer that way, you don’t know me. I have opinions. I state them all the time. I often regret them later. But I don’t have an opinion on this. I’ve never played. I couldn’t comment if it’s a worthy win or not.”

After Jeremy confirmed that he — and not the host — was the one stating the opinion, Probst continued on being slammed by Las Culturistas: “The thing is, I like that podcast, and Bowen was great to me when I was on SNL. He welcomed me and kind of relieved some pressure that you kind of feel when you’re there. And I like both those guys. So Matt, I hear you. And it was funny, but you got the wrong guy. Retape that with Jeremy. And Jeremy, you can take all the grief.”

After then reiterating that he has nothing to do with Australian Survivor, Probst decided to go and drop an opinion anyway, and it has to do with the four people he considers the best to ever play the game.

“I do have an opinion I would like to offer up, if I may. My opinion is I have a Mount Rushmore of Survivor players from the U.S. Just my own opinion. And I’m going tell you who they are: Boston Rob, Sandra, Tony, and Parvati. Those are the only four people on my Mount Rushmore. Parvati is one of the most dominant to ever play. Incredibly charming, mischievous, devious, duplicitous — all the things that Tony is, and Rob is, and Sandra.”

Probst also notes that fearsome foursome has something else in common. “Also worth mentioning, all four of them are villains. Celebrated villains. Villains that we love.”

Fans have lamented a lack of villains in the show’s new era, but the host insists he is not weeding them out in casting. “The only reason I bring up villains, is that people keep saying ‘Probst doesn’t want villains.’ Oh, let me be clear. If you know a Rob, a Sandra, a Tony, or a Parvati waiting to play Survivor, please give them my personal number because we will put them on the show immediately.”

However, there is a brand of old school Survivor villain that Probst admits is now persona non grata. “But if what you’re talking about in the kind of villains you want is sort of that throwback — and we’ve had some that are just sort of mean-spirited — they’re not fun. It’s ugly. Those people, no, we don’t want them. They can apply to other shows. But the idea of villains is still very much alive. I think in Survivor 49, you could argue Savannah’s making a case.”

 In the end, the host says he loves the debate and discussion over all things Survivor… as long as he is not misquoted in the process. “That’s why Survivor is fun. It is a sport. I like these opinions. I get tons thrown at me all the time. I don’t mind it. Except if I didn’t say it, then I mind it. So that’s all I wanted to clear up.”