Mercury69 3 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Did I read a different article than everyone else?Oh hey look, you found the point of the article.What the fuck are you talking about? You've never heard someone say something like, "for the good of the game?" Is it really that abstract of an idea? I heard you have a sense of humour. This statement contradicts this claim. Particularly because I put "serious answer" just below...Gawd....woah, woah, WOAH. This board has already had one TNG reference today, and that puts us at the daily limit.Sorry, missed that! One per board, eh? Where are we for ST:TOS? Gotta be multiple for that...at least two or three. AND NO DS9 REFERENCES, PLEASE!!! Link to post Share on other sites
SBriand 4 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 woah, woah, WOAH. This board has already had one TNG reference today, and that puts us at the daily limit.Yeah know I was going to ask what the hell is going on with all the TNG references today but I thought I might have been going crazy. Link to post Share on other sites
king_tanner 84 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Daniel is a very respected person in the poker community, and many people read his blog. This is an incredible low blow to Phil Ivey, a very good friend to Daniel. Daniel doesn't 'have' to do anything, but sticking up for friends is always a good thing.I'm sure Phil doesn't care what some random media person writes about. Barry Greenstein will probably say something about it next time he calls to bother Ivey in the next "Life of Ivey" segment on pokerroad.I understand the point of the article JoeyJoJo. I just disagree that snubbing an interview was bad for poker. I don't think the poker community will lose sleep at night if there isn't a Phil Ivey interview following his bustout on Cardplayer. He did the interview afterwards on the ESPN broadcast. Should not be a big deal. So in my opinion it was bad for the media, not bad for poker. Link to post Share on other sites
JoeyJoJo 18 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 I heard you have a sense of humour. This statement contradicts this claim. Particularly because I put "serious answer" just below...Gawd....Sorry, you're right. I still think most people in here are wrong. I feel like I'm back in the No Country for Old Men thread explaining why the sheriff was the key character. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Sorry, you're right. I still think most people in here are wrong. I feel like I'm back in the No Country for Old Men thread explaining why the sheriff was the key character.There was a sheriff in that movie? huh. Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Phil Ivey was the main attraction of this Main Event. Most of the buildup surrounded having the best player in the world involved in the November Nine. Every other player faced the full media gauntlet (including other players who took horrendous beats like Ivey to go out). If everyone else did it, you would like for the most important player to do it.No, he did not have to. But it would have been better if he had. I dont think this guy is remotely out of line with his article. Link to post Share on other sites
Mercury69 3 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Sorry, you're right. I still think most people in here are wrong. I feel like I'm back in the No Country for Old Men thread explaining why the sheriff was the key character.It's cool. The only person who can really say what's right is Ivey, perhaps. And, maybe, that sheriff from NCFOM. He knows where it's at, even if he expresses himself in decidedly unrural terms.There was a sheriff in that movie? huh.Huh? Link to post Share on other sites
nutzbuster 7 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 DN is the one on the left. What's Toby McGuire doing in there? pedo... Link to post Share on other sites
Boners_Galore 0 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 While I think everyone would agree that it would certainly have been nice to hear exactly what Ivey was thinking about in the minutes following his ouster from the ME, the fact of the matter is that it was his choice, his prerogative. Ideally he would have come out and answered all the "cookie cutter" questions about the final table and what went down. But the simple fact of the matter is that a.) Nobody had to go and talk to the media, it was ultimately each player's choice and b.) This is Phil ****ing Ivey we're talking about, the best. He is not one to bask in the media spotlight to begin with, when asked after making the final table he said did not like the idea of the 4 month break, he would rather of just played the thing out right then and there. Regardless, I think that Ivey's not taking an interview with the media following his knockout is still good for poker. Part of his allure is the fact that he doesn't really put himself out there like some other players. Throngs of fans still long to get more access to him and its part of what makes him such an interesting entity. Sure the blogger is entitled to his opinion but it sounds more like his mere whining rather then a legitimate attempt at expressing his opinion. Link to post Share on other sites
Canary3 1 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 I have nothing to add. However, I can't believe Boners Galore is not a joke account. Link to post Share on other sites
MapleLeafpoker 1,462 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Can you guys answer this question:Would it be better for poker if Phil Ivey faced all of the media and answered their questions and talked about the experience, etc., etc.?I agree with a lot of the points your making. It would be better for "poker" as a whole, would help drum up interest from Joe Normal, and he could be the face of poker if he wanted. Selling the "game" is part of every profession.But he doesn't want to. Just like Charles Barkley didnt want to be for basketball, and Mario Lemieux didnt want to be Gretzky, and on and on. Some professionals just don't have it in them I guess.Its disappointing to me, as a fan, that I dont get more access to Ivey. It doesnt bother me a ton, but I also would like to know more about him, and if I were him, I would try to realize the poker afforded me a lot of things, and giving back would be nice. Yes, it is his choice. BUT, like pro leagues do, maybe the WSOP should consider putting in certain conditions into their contract.......you want to play in our tournaments, accept that public PR work is part of the "job". If not, your fined. Im sure Ivey will take the fine and tell them to fk off, but so be it. He's a grown man, he can do what he wants. But I agree it would be better for a lot of other people, and probably Ivery himself, if he did some PR. My one caveat though is, if its the usual "athelete" bullshit quotes, then Id rather he not even bother. Link to post Share on other sites
Boners_Galore 0 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 I have nothing to add. However, I can't believe Boners Galore is not a joke account.Check my sig. Fresh addition. P.S. what's wrong with boners? Link to post Share on other sites
Canary3 1 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 I'm just hoping that's not a picture of you in your avatar with a boner. Link to post Share on other sites
Boners_Galore 0 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 I'm just hoping that's not a picture of you in your avatar with a boner.It is a man with a boner. Unfortunately, not me. Link to post Share on other sites
Suited_Up 2 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 It is a man with a boner. Unfortunately, not me.That ruins your whole thing for me. Link to post Share on other sites
Fade2241 0 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Phil Ivey was the main attraction of this Main Event. Most of the buildup surrounded having the best player in the world involved in the November Nine. Every other player faced the full media gauntlet (including other players who took horrendous beats like Ivey to go out). If everyone else did it, you would like for the most important player to do it.No, he did not have to. But it would have been better if he had. I dont think this guy is remotely out of line with his article.yeah, persecuting people publicly to do something they're not at all obligated to do is A okay!GTFO with this garbage please, and read my previous post. Link to post Share on other sites
DCJ001 0 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Daniel Needs To Call Out This Guy In His Next Blog For Trashing IveyYou've already tripled this blog's number of views by encouraging thirty or so people to read it. Daniel does not need to increase the number of views for it further by referencing it in his blog.Ivey was probably unhappy with the loss, and not looking forward to the same stupid questions. Link to post Share on other sites
Boners_Galore 0 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 That ruins your whole thing for me.damn. Link to post Share on other sites
JoeyJoJo 18 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 yeah, persecuting people publicly to do something they're not at all obligated to do is A okay!GTFO with this garbage please, and read my previous post.lol @ public persecution.Your previous post doesn't need to be read again because it missed the point of the article. Link to post Share on other sites
JoeyJoJo 18 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 But he doesn't want to. Just like Charles Barkley didnt want to be for basketball, and Mario Lemieux didnt want to be Gretzky, and on and on. Some professionals just don't have it in them I guess.For what it's worth, the fact that all Ivey cares about is winning money is appealing to me. The fact that he doesn't seem to care about fame and celebrity and all that and just wants more money is pretty awesome.I'm just saying it makes for a bad ambassador of the game. Link to post Share on other sites
flyingdonkey 0 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 It is a man with a boner. Unfortunately, not me.So how long did it take for you to find the right Boner pic? You know how I know you're gay? Link to post Share on other sites
Fade2241 0 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 lol @ public persecution.Your previous post doesn't need to be read again because it missed the point of the article.kay. Link to post Share on other sites
JoeyJoJo 18 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 kay.Alright, fine, let's do this.this writter is a fool.Writter?phil ivey needs to do what's best for him, not poker.From the article:"Once again, Ivey can do whatever he wants to do. He's got that much cache – and he's earned it."just because he's the best player in the game, doesn't mean he owes anyone anything, especially the media. this dude is setting himself up for disappointment if he thinks the media is entitled to someone's opinion just because they are famous.Read the first two sentences of the article again."Throughout the four-month delay before the World Series of Poker Main Event final table, there was a lot of debate about what player winning would be 'best for poker.' Most observers felt that a Phil Ivey victory was the answer to that question since it would be ideal if 'the greatest player in the world won the greatest tournament in the world.'"The writer then goes on to explain why he thinks Phil Ivey was not the correct answer to the question. His reasoning boils down to this: Phil Ivey isn't interested in the media. His point is not that Phil Ivey is a bad person or that the media is entitled to his opinion; his point is that he isn't the ideal ambassador of the game and therefore, isn't the best person to win.Now, if you want to debate whether someone being available to the media is necessary to be good for the game, then go ahead. But stop making it about media entitlement or Ivey's obligations. Link to post Share on other sites
SBriand 4 Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Alright, fine, let's do this.Writter?From the article:"Once again, Ivey can do whatever he wants to do. He's got that much cache – and he's earned it."Read the first two sentences of the article again."Throughout the four-month delay before the World Series of Poker Main Event final table, there was a lot of debate about what player winning would be 'best for poker.' Most observers felt that a Phil Ivey victory was the answer to that question since it would be ideal if 'the greatest player in the world won the greatest tournament in the world.'"The writer then goes on to explain why he thinks Phil Ivey was not the correct answer to the question. His reasoning boils down to this: Phil Ivey isn't interested in the media. His point is not that Phil Ivey is a bad person or that the media is entitled to his opinion; his point is that he isn't the ideal ambassador of the game and therefore, isn't the best person to win.Now, if you want to debate whether someone being available to the media is necessary to be good for the game, then go ahead. But stop making it about media entitlement or Ivey's obligations.Sometimes I like you. Like now. Link to post Share on other sites
Boners_Galore 0 Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 So how long did it take for you to find the right Boner pic? You know how I know you're gay?bigot. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now