moneymaker vs. raymer!

[mike3076]

WHY ON EARTH does money maker get so much publicity
and raymer barely any???
moneymakers win was smaller and in 2003.
raymer won 5 mill and happened only last year-WTF??

[slickpoppa]

a) The WSOP was more of a novelty when Moneymaker won it
b) Moneymaker is more of a rags to riches story
c) The 2003 WSOP coverage with Dutch v. Moneymaker, Farha v. Moneymaker, etc was much more interesting to watch. Fossilman is a great guy, but watching him win coin flips and bitch David Williams was not very interesting.

[ChristinaB]

Daliman gives a great analysis of the reason Right Here. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1788993&Main=1783151#Post 1788993)

[daveymck]

He may not have got as much publicity but I think he has done a lot better out of his win, he is doing commentary seems to be getting on a lot of TV tournies etc etc.

I am sure Greg is happy with his lot.

[ZeeJustin]

A lot of time has passed since Moneymaker won, while not too much time has passed for Raymer. As Greg plays more tournaments, and makes more final tables, his name will become much more recognizable than Moneymaker's, IMHO.

[Stinglikeabee]

The tourney was more exciting when Moneymaker won. There was more table talk, closer chip counts, and better storyline.

[47outs]

Because Moneymaker actually sucked at the time. Raymer was always pretty solid, not much to talk about here. The fact that Moneymaker sucked so bad got people looney for a while.

outs

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
his name will become much more recognizable than Moneymaker's

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

Also, Moneymaker is 10x cooler than Raymer in the opinions of most everyone.

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
his name will become much more recognizable than Moneymaker's

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

Also, Moneymaker is 10x cooler than Raymer in the opinions of most everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope Tim Pwntown wins it all this year.

[Adde]

His cool name makes editors drool.

Adde

[skp]

1. Shakespeare was wrong when he said "what's in a name. A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet"...or something like that, I could be off on the quote as I hardly ever attended class in high school...heh

In any event, Moneymaker gets more ink because of his name.

2. The primacy effect. He got there first and his story is therefore more interesting copy than Raymer's.

All of this is a bit unjust because I don't think that there is any question that Raymer is a better player than Moneymaker.

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
WHY ON EARTH does money maker get so much publicity
and raymer barely any???

[/ QUOTE ]

Cuz Moneymaker needs the money so he is willing to do whatever he can to make a dollar. Greg can play, so he only does the stuff that he wants to.

Course I could be wrong about Moneymaker needing the money, I'm just guessing.

[jakethebake]

Damn! I was hoping from the thread title they were gonna be on celebrity boxing or something. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[bolgenmod]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Shakespeare was wrong when he said "what's in a name. A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet"...or something like that, I could be off on the quote as I hardly ever attended class in high school...heh



[/ QUOTE ]

Your quote is close enough (pedantry alert: "that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet"), but what they probably didn't point out to you in high school is the total irony of this line. Juliet is saying that it doesn't matter that she is a Capulet while Romeo is a Montague; their love will transcend the differences between them because after all it is only a difference in name, not in substance. But ironically, the name proves to have more power than she (or he) could possibly imagine: it is because they are Capulet and Montague and ONLY because of this that they cannot live happily ever after. So in the end, the name is more important and significant than any other matter of more substance.

So Shakespeare wasn't exactly wrong -- in fact, he would probably agree with you.

Indeed, I think that one cannot underestimate the importance of Moneymaker's name over matters of more substance...

[citizennobody]

Moneymaker

Pros

cool name
good ole boy
rags to riches story
supposedly cool
WSOP champion

Cons

Fat
stupid dad with stupid commentary
Fat
not cool personality (seen him in action)
Big ole tub of guts
stupid playing style
Fat
catches rivers
Fat
is now currently broke (looks like he lives of Red Bull and cigs)
thinks he can play


Raymer

Pros

nice guy
he CAN play
cool shades
his hobby is rocks
and he responds to posts on here
WSOP champ whose winnings piss on moneymakers and he wont go broke

Cons

Fat
fat
fat


There you have ladies and gents....its a tie because they are both FAT

[skp]

good stuff. nice to see that someone around here went to class in high school.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
His cool name makes editors drool. - Adde

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. I believe Moneymaker is a great sounding name for a poker player - just like Mickey Mantle was a great name for a ball player. If Mantle had hit 100 more home runs but had my name he would have been far less famous.

~ Rick

[MyMindIsGoing]

With those people skills I can see how you will become a great poker player.

[andyfox]

Mickey himself said he thought his alliterative name had much to do with his fame.

Lately, though, the new sabermetric statisticians have shown he was a greater player than he was given credit for when he was active. His high OPS in an era when batting averages were low makes his offensive achievements larger than they seemed at the time.

[bolgenmod]

[ QUOTE ]
good stuff. nice to see that someone around here went to class in high school.

[/ QUOTE ]

Glad that you appreciated my outburst...

Actually, I spent most of high school doing illegal things. And my first two tries at college likewise. But -- and now I out myself as one of the "oldies" on the board -- it was the late 70's - early 80's, and that's what we did back then: sex and drugs and rock and roll was not just a slogan before AIDS and crack and Ashlee Simpson!