Quote:
Originally Posted by flip
hahahahahahaha.
If any "sport" totally lacks a Tiger Woods, it is Poker. Ivey is certainly good, and he may be the best poker in the world right now but he's a hell of a long way from being best ever. The money argument is BS because the $$ figures in poker touneys has skyrocketed in the last 10 years, so you're totally discounting the 40+ years of poker before that.
Until Ivey wins the WSOP in consecutive years and the $50k HORSE WSOP title in like 4 consecutive years it isn't him.
Most people don't even consider the main even to be the showcase of the best of the best because the format sucks.
|
Along the same lines, you can't use the consecutive years arguement because tournament fields were a fraction the size back in Chan and Ungar's days. The last time it was done (Chan in '88), there were 167 contestants. The time before that (Ungar '81) there were 75. Hell, when Doyle did it in '77, there were only 34 entrants. This year there were 6494.
One of the greatest poker achievements in history was Dan Harrington making back to back final tables in 2003 and 2004 against fields of 839 and 2576 respectively.
The guy has won in almost every game (HU, full table, PLO, Hold'em, stud, HORSE, and on and on and on).
You can call it a different game these days, but Phil Ivey is definitely one of, if not the, best in history.