A New Look At Johnny Chan

[lurbz 2]

you're such a shit lurbz

<3

[thebottomline 0]

[ ] I care what you think[ ] apostrophe was necessary[x] apostrophe was Rose-like[ ] I'm an idiot[x] You should read my strat posts[x] I'm trying to revive checkboxes[ ] I'm succeeding[ ] More than 1% of people here have a ****-clue who you are[ ] I am in that 1%[x] Shut the **** up, you clueless shitOh, and by the way - Moss and Ungar both have 3 ME wins, Chan does not. Hence why his "record" doesn't mean shit - because it isn't real.As much as I tend to not like Doyle, he still has some form of class. Hellmuth and Chan do not. In closing...who the **** are you?

Why does the bold matter? Particularly if you say respect is not a one way street, is it a post-based street?

It's an accomplishment, I agree - but to inflate it by saying "a record that will never be broken" is absurd, simply because of how much the event has changed. Kind of like how Wilt Chamberlain's rebound records will never be broken because the game is not the same.

I think that's kind of the reason he's saying it won't be broken, because of how it would be literally impossible in modern times. It didn't come across as arrogant to me, just that he's proud that he can say he's done something that won't be matched, because the event has changed so much. He said a lot of those words anyway. And, you've come across a lot more arrogant ITT than he did IMO.

LOL didn't I ask you to quit the hypocrisy? You're attacking how I called Chan's "record", then do the same when I bring up Moss?

I think you missed the reason he did it..I don't have a problem with you Lurbz, I think you're a good poster, I just don't think this topic is your best work.

[lurbz 2]

Why does the bold matter? Particularly if you say respect is not a one way street, is it a post-based street?I think that's kind of the reason he's saying it won't be broken, because of how it would be literally impossible in modern times. It didn't come across as arrogant to me, just that he's proud that he can say he's done something that won't be matched, because the event has changed so much. He said a lot of those words anyway. And, you've come across a lot more arrogant ITT than he did IMO.I think you missed the reason he did it..I don't have a problem with you Lurbz, I think you're a good poster, I just don't think this topic is your best work.

#1: Allie has more posts than me, doesn't mean I have a **** clue who she is, and since the first words out were that I was an idiot, I'm not going to respect someone who doesn't respect me.#2: I have a very different viewpoint than everyone, and the majority of them attacked me before I really "went after" anyone. Hence the bit of a vehement response.#3: Gatortom, I wish you had a clue about anything so I could find some worth in your existence, I've tried, but I can't.#4: Thank you, I actually agree, I've been a bit distracted on this one, where the hell did my troll skill go?EDIT: #5, if he was being triple-ironic and through that quadruple-leveling me, I'm really gonna have to step up my game soon.

[CaneBrain 95]

Chan ran Kings into Aces and then Jacks into Aces and is out.

[JSpencer 0]

That's YOUR logic though. And it is perfectly fine. I'm talking about merit in what Lurbz said. He said none of the things you are saying.Hes comparing 180's>winning main event in late 80s since it has more people

4.40's sure....But I'm sure the higher stakes 180's are similar in terms of player ability.

[OVERKILL 0]

/thread

[aucu 3]

Chan ran Kings into Aces and then Jacks into Aces and is out.

[CaneBrain 95]

yeah no kidding. the kings v. aces pot was for like 4.5 million chips. sighaments.

[Balloon guy 158]

I for one agree with lurbz here.Winning the bracelet when there was only about 175 players is nothing and doesn't in anyway show how good you are.You have to be able to beat the deep fields to be considered good!Robert Varkoni beat 630 playersChris Moneymaker beat 838 playersJamie Gold beat 8,772 peopleThese guys have shown what it takes to be good, to be the best!Johnny Chan....hah

[thebottomline 0]

#3: Gatortom, I wish you had a clue about anything so I could find some worth in your existence, I've tried, but I can't.

Gatortom??? What does he have to do with it?

[lurbz 2]

Gatortom??? What does he have to do with it?

check page 1, with the "did your parents..." comment

[lurbz 2]

I failed reading comprehension as a kid.

[ ] I ever said Chan wasn't good.

[Balloon guy 158]

[ ] I ever said Chan wasn't good.

I did. He only beat the same amount of players that a guy who has $2.20 can beat on any day of the week.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

Johnny Chan has the record for highest average finish in three consecutive WSOP Main Events.

[Balloon guy 158]

Johnny Chan has the record for highest average finish in three consecutive WSOP Main Events.

but what about adjusting said averages for numbers? cause then I think actually Dan Harrington beat him!and for two I know Greg Raymen did.And for one I know Joe Hachem was recently heard whining about how unfair the judging was.

[hartman72 0]

LOL didn't I ask you to quit the hypocrisy? You're attacking how I called Chan's "record", then do the same when I bring up Moss?Done acknowledging any of your posts from now on, just a heads up.

It's ok for you to shrug off Chan's accomplishment bc u won 180s which is comparable to the field he beat, but I can't shrug off Moss's accomplishment bc I won a sit and go which is comparable to the fields he beat? Who's being a hypocrite?I am one of the few who have not said anything disrespectful to you personally, I'm just arguing with your logic. You're done acknowledging MY posts now though. Makes sense.

[lurbz 2]

It's ok for you to shrug off Chan's accomplishment bc u won 180s which is comparable to the field he beat, but I can't shrug off Moss's accomplishment bc I won a sit and go which is comparable to the fields he beat? Who's being a hypocrite?I am one of the few who have not said anything disrespectful to you personally, I'm just arguing with your logic. You're done acknowledging MY posts now though. Makes sense.

eh, i'll give you one last one. i thank you for not bashing me personally, unlike the "pile ons" who didnt bother to discuss it.the part i'm saying is that Bob's relation of the record to the 50k makes a hell of a lot more sense than calling it a "Main Event" record in this era. I'm just 8 tabling and not making much sense in this thread at all.