Guest Anonymous Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 Jim Brown is the greatest running back I have ever seen. End of story !! He does not play in this generation or the last. He did not play against Ray LEwis or 300 pound down linemen. But I will arguew with anyone who tells me that Emmit SMith or Barry Snaders is better. Willie Mays , Micky Mantle, Joe DImaggio, and Sandy Koufax. They are some of the best I have ever seen. They are great players then and forever. Stu Ungar is arguably the greatest player ever. Whether he played today or 20 years ago it doesn't matter. The competition is so diluted now in all sports that it takes away from their accomplishments. Stu Ungar aplayed against the best endof story. He faced final tables with soem of the greatest players ever. Today we have sam farha and chris moneymaker, robert varkoni, and others at final tables. What a joke!! Overrated far from it!! :naughty: Link to post Share on other sites
maxstud 0 Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 You saw Joe Dimaggio play?????....what are you 75 y/o??? Link to post Share on other sites
Socrates 0 Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 Sam Farha a joke - I don't know if I'd go there, I sure as hell wouldn't want to face him at a table. Link to post Share on other sites
TheIceman05 0 Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 Sam Farha a joke - I don't know if I'd go there, I sure as hell wouldn't want to face him at a table.I'm pretty sure he's widely considered to be the best Pot Limit Omaha player in the world. You know, in case anyone cares. I don't know if the analogy to sports necessarily works, my friend. Unlike baseball, the structure of tournament poker has undergone a complete overhaul since the days of Stewart Ungar. Yes, there are more good players today. But more importantly, there are MORE PLAYERS. What if, instead of having to compete with 30 teams, the yankees had to compete with 300? Even if half those teams had a 0 percent chance of winning, it would still be miraculous if they were in the world series two straight years. Ungar might have been one of the best tournament poker players ever, and maybe that can't be taken away from him. But his accomplishments simply aren't as impressive as, say, Dan Harrington's recent run at the World Series. Also, please differentiate between Stuey's tournament chops (very good), his ring game chops (tilty mctilt), his Gin chops (best of all time in the history of the world), his backgammon chops (some say as good as he was at gin, he might've been better at backgammon), and his ability to do hard hard drugs (heroic).Ice Link to post Share on other sites
epistemic 0 Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 Toogood,There's this book called Intro To Logic, you should read it so you can find out how to construct a plausible argument, because you've committed just about every logical fallacy known to man.I don't know WTF you are trying to say.Out Link to post Share on other sites
MilesZS 0 Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 Jim Brown is the greatest running back I have ever seen.  End of story !! He does not play in this generation or the last.  He did not play against Ray LEwis or 300 pound down linemen.  But I will arguew with anyone who tells me that Emmit SMith or Barry Snaders is better.  Willie Mays , Micky Mantle, Joe  DImaggio, and Sandy Koufax.  They are some of the best I have ever seen.  They are great players then and forever.  Stu Ungar is arguably the greatest player ever.  Whether he played today or 20 years ago it doesn't matter.  The competition is so diluted now in all sports that it takes away from their accomplishments.  Stu Ungar aplayed against the best endof story.  He faced final tables with soem of the greatest players ever.  Today we have sam farha and chris moneymaker, robert varkoni, and others at final tables.  What a joke!!  Overrated far from it!!  :naughty:So, since you love to argue, and you do so with the skill of the greatest 5 year old debater to date, I am going to mess with your head.Walter Payton, Barry Sanders (if he stayed in the league longer)Jose Canseco (just kidding)and Stu is ONE OF THE BEST. I think this is a distinction everyone SHOULD be able to agree with. He is ONE of the best, but not necessarily the exclusive best, because that's an impossible award to measure for. Link to post Share on other sites
mark33f 0 Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 Poker and professional sports are two different things. Your argument makes no sense about moneymaker and varkoni...When there is more people in a poker tournament it is harder for the top pros to win. But in sports it is easier for the great players to do better.I would bet most pros would rather face 200 or 300 good pros than 2500 people who are there just to go all in against you rather than actually play the game.and jim brown isnt the greatest running back ever Link to post Share on other sites
Funkii 0 Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 I guarantee you you're wrong. Unless those 2500 people are paying the same amount of money as the 200 pros, in which case you're right. More people means more money with less average skill. Link to post Share on other sites
NormanHaupt 0 Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 GG, about time someone mentioned Walter Peyton. Link to post Share on other sites
Awful 0 Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 I guarantee you you're wrong. Â Unless those 2500 people are paying the same amount of money as the 200 pros, in which case you're right. Â More people means more money with less average skill.In terms of PROFIT, yes, it increases your tournament overlay.In term of CHAMPIONSHIPS, it's still far far easier to beat a field of 200 that you're equal in than to beat a field of 2000 that you're twice as good at.I have some similar math in the other thread about Stuey and "how good was he" and so on. Link to post Share on other sites
Ruffian 0 Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 Stu is and was the best (nlp) player ever. His quote "there may be a gin player one day who is my equal... but never a no limit holdem player" is correct He is the best ever ! Link to post Share on other sites
epistemic 0 Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 Stu  is and was the best  (nlp) player ever.  His quote  "there may be a gin player one day who is my equal... but never a no limit holdem player" is correct   He is the best ever !Ruffian is the best MISQUOTER ever. "Some day, I suppose it's possible for someone to be a better No Limit Hold'em player than me...But, I swear to you, I don't see how anyone could ever play gin better than me." - Stu UngarOut Link to post Share on other sites
KDawgCometh 2 Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 GG, Â about time someone mentioned Walter Peyton.its PAYTON, I'm a die hard bears fan and take it seriously. I'm just funning you on messing up sweetnesses last name Link to post Share on other sites
mark33f 0 Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 I guarantee you you're wrong. Â Unless those 2500 people are paying the same amount of money as the 200 pros, in which case you're right. Â More people means more money with less average skill.I cant understand what you are sayingWhat do you mean by "paying"...is that in terms of amoutn of money to buy in or number of chipsThe more people, yes the more you make by winningi agree there is more people with less average skill...but poker isnt a game of all skill. The more people playing the more you have to get lucky. Link to post Share on other sites
KDawgCometh 2 Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 GG, Â about time someone mentioned Walter Peyton.its PAYTON, I'm a die hard bears fan and take it seriously. I'm just funning you on messing up sweetnesses last name Link to post Share on other sites
NormanHaupt 0 Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 lmao I'm not sure whats funner.. spelling it right or you being a bears fan? I'm from Philly though so I've got no room to poke Link to post Share on other sites
KDawgCometh 2 Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 lmao I'm not sure whats funner.. spelling it right or you being a bears fan? I'm from Philly though so I've got no room to pokewell being a Bears fan takes a lot of love, lots of love Link to post Share on other sites
Jtmaroon84 0 Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 Thats why some of us from Chicago switched over to the dark side, GO PACK GO! Link to post Share on other sites
NormanHaupt 0 Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 lmao I'm not sure whats funner.. spelling it right or you being a bears fan? I'm from Philly though so I've got no room to pokewell being a Bears fan takes a lot of love, lots of loveSo does being an Eagle after all these seasons The Bears had a good win over GB last season- they could rebound relatively soon if they can keep healthy. hmm maybe closer to the season I'll see if I can coordinate a fantasy football league here- I did one last year at work and online for my Medal of Honor clan- good stuff.But the cubs.. with Sosa gone they can grow again.. and the baby bulls look hot, too. So 'cago's got some stuff to hold them over until the bears get back. Link to post Share on other sites
KDawgCometh 2 Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 I utterly disdain the cubs. I'm a white sox fan, the cubs are just a bunch of yuppie losers Link to post Share on other sites
TarHeelAce 0 Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 How could you possibly switch from the Bears to the Packers? Bear down, baby! Link to post Share on other sites
bourbenz 0 Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 Thats why some of us from Chicago switched over to the dark side, GO PACK GO!thats just plain wrong, I tell you, wrong. :evil: Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 I'm pretty sure he's widely considered to be the best Pot Limit Omaha player in the world. You know, in case anyone cares. I don't know if the analogy to sports necessarily works, my friend. Unlike baseball, the structure of tournament poker has undergone a complete overhaul since the days of Stewart Ungar. Yes, there are more good players today. But more importantly, there are MORE PLAYERS. What if, instead of having to compete with 30 teams, the yankees had to compete with 300? Even if half those teams had a 0 percent chance of winning, it would still be miraculous if they were in the world series two straight years. Ungar might have been one of the best tournament poker players ever, and maybe that can't be taken away from him. But his accomplishments simply aren't as impressive as, say, Dan Harrington's recent run at the World Series. Also, please differentiate between Stuey's tournament chops (very good), his ring game chops (tilty mctilt), his Gin chops (best of all time in the history of the world), his backgammon chops (some say as good as he was at gin, he might've been better at backgammon), and his ability to do hard hard drugs (heroic).FIrst off it is easier today for the yankee the league is so diluted. You must have never played sports. They have a great team becuase they shell out the money and the rest of the league is just a mish mosh of talent all over the place. It owuld be a lot harder if there were 10very good teams instead of 20 bad teams and 5 good teams and 2 or 3 great teams. Stu played against the best. Dan Harrington come on now. HE is agood player a very good player. Not in that league of Ungar!! Farha is not the best by the way ted forrest is the best i have seen play pot limit omaha. The game is holdem. Dilution makes bad players look better than they are. Ungar used to beat the best! Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 Toogood,There's this book called Intro To Logic, you should read it so you can find out how to construct a plausible argument, because you've committed just about every logical fallacy known to man.I don't know WTF you are trying to say.wow not to intelligent!! I understand go back to 4th grade! WHat is so hard dilution has killed the game 2,000 bad players is easier to win then a 200 great player tourney. :roll: Link to post Share on other sites
KDawgCometh 2 Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 Thats why some of us from Chicago switched over to the dark side, GO PACK GO!JUDAS :!: :evil: 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