This could be controversial

[ThaSaltCracka]

I have an interesting question for everyone out there. We have always heard how great poker players people like Doyle Bronson and Amarillo Slim are, but my question is are they really that great in comparison to players today?

I know that they both won the WSP but that was 30 years ago, when the competition was much easier and the field smaller. It seems to me that the best players are the ones to emerge in the last 15 years, the tournaments they play in are harder, the skill of the players has increased, overall much more difficult.

I am curious what you guys think about this

[MrDannimal]

No different then any other "sport". Is Barry Bonds better then Babe Ruth? Is the Bucs current D the match of the Steelers "Steel Curtain"?

You can argue both sides. Sure there's more people involved in (for example) the WSOP now, but just as that means it can be harder to win because of bad beats, it also means there's more dead money to help you build an early stack. But when there was only 30-50 people involves, you were playing the best right from the get go.

*shrug* Great discussion, no definitive answer.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I hear what you are saying, but I read slims book and he said the early tournaments basically consisted of the best 7 players, thought by Benny Binion, invited to play cards in front of a camera, it was basically a publicity stunt that took off, that is whay I think the early champs get to much credit for their victories, most of them never even come close now, but you continually see the same 20 or so players near or at the final table for the WSOP and other tournaments.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Good point, though I'd say in football, there isn't even a comparison. The size/speed advantages today's players have over teams from even 15 years ago is so huge that there is no comparison. The great Packer teams of the Lombardi era, for example, would be lucky to win even one game against even a lower echelon team in today's NFL.

[MrDannimal]

Right. But you then get into debates trying to compare teams vs. their respective eras. While the current Tampa D is better in direct comparison to the Steel Curtain, is it as dominating over the league as the Curtain was when it won 4 rings?

(I'm not arguing one side over the other. I wasn't a football fan back then, I was watching Sesame Street. I'm just saying how hard it is to compare different eras of competitors in various events)

[Copernicus]

It depends on who you are comparing them to as "the best players today". If you are considering recent winners to be the best, I think DB and AS are hands down better now, much less when they were in their prime. There are several posters in the tourney section here who are no less likely to win then CM or RV were for example.

If, however, you are comparing them to the players who are consistently showing up at the final table...the Ngyuens, the Ulliots, the Costa Rican players, etc., I think they have been surpassed. The modern players have two advantages. They have the book knowledge that has been provided by the "trailblazers" plus the S&Ms of the world, plus they have cut their teeth against better competition...survival of the fittest. The better your competition, the quicker you will get better (or disappear).

[Rushmore]

Perhaps my read is bad on this, but based on the information I've read and heard over the years, reputable sources seem to have continuing reverence and respect ( fear?) for Brunson's game, while Preston is more valued as a character/"old timer."

This is not meant as a personal judgement, it just seems to be the way I hear it.

It seems to say either that Brunson's game was great all along, and he was great way before the game caught up with him, or that he adapted adequately to become greater than he was originally, relative to the field.

[ThaSaltCracka]

all right guys get back to poker talk, and I think what you are saying makes perfect sense and is exactly why I think todays players are better. It just seems to me poker in the early days was ruled by players who had a gimick or an edge, however I think that a truely great player like Brunson would tear players like that up.
Now though, Brunson skill can't compare with todays greats, who have played against to much great competition.

[Nottom]

From all accounts I've heard, Brunson is still a top ring game player (he was in Sklansky's 100k group) and I don't think he was every a truely great tourney player even when he did win the back-to-back WSOPs. This isn't even considering the fact that he had to pretty much completely change his NL game after writing SuperSystem.

[ThaSaltCracka]

interesting so do you think there is a difference between a good tourney player and a good non-tourney player?

[HDPM]

This has been discussed a lot. The best can play both. The rest can't. The best players are in the big ring games.

[HDPM]

Yeah, always hard to compare eras. But even if the overall quality is better, the best from prior eras would compete. You think Jim Brown put in a time machine as a 20 year old could play in the NFL now? Think if he had modern training and "supplements". I think it's safe to say he'd gain a couple yards. Ben Hogan and Jack Nicklaus would win golf tournaments. Gordie Howe could (and did) play hockey in the modern era. Now, the also-rans of past eras would be way behind. Old poker players have been discussed around here. Doyle could play. Then and now, live or tourn. Moss prolly not. Others could make the transition. Some of the old guys couldn't. Nothing new.

[JTrout]

"Ben Hogan and Jack Nicklaus would win golf tournaments."

Although I would love to see Hogan play, watching him putt today's greens with 12 stimp readings would be a true nightmare. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[BookOfIcculus]

There is a huge differnce between ring games and tourneys. IMHO, For example I have made it to the final table several times in very few tries at StudH/l and Stud tourney. yet my ring game is the worst. I would say that whenever I sit down at a ring stud game I am the worst or number 6 of 8. ONe reason is because the increasing blinds allow you to wait for a real premium starting hand and make up all of your lost blinds. And another reason is you can pick to only go against shorter stacks on good drawing hands.

[MrGrob]

The new Chess players of today are more scientific and have WAY more access to info when preparing for a tourney etc (not to mention people to help them -- up to 4 or 5 sometimes). Poker is kinda the same way when working on your game (if you play online). Is Kasparov any better than Fischer? Hard to say...as Kasparov had Fisher to learn from etc. Both were great natural talents, and both were trails blazers, but one had the other to learn from. I believe the same is true for players today in Poker. I really don't like the idea that you can pull hand histories and have use of a stat program to pull and calc online results etc in a heartbeat, but, unlike in Chess, there is always a bit of missing info when you play. In Chess, games can be won and lost at the highest levels just because someone read about game X played two days ago in Y tourney, with the 13th move novelty etc....

Poker's beauty is in the lack of full information...you can amass all the data you want, but in a given game, there is still that lack of info, and thus always room for creative play etc...in Chess, well, The Grob Opening was fun...but too many times I was "creatively destroyed"...not to mention that if both players have full info of that opening, it makes you an underdog as either side if you play it....

[Copernicus]

There is a HUGE difference between ring games and tourneys, and the skills needed to succeed in each. Its easy to say that "the best excel in both", since that may well be the definition of the best. However, if you take the top 10 ring players and the top 10 tourney players in the world, my guess is the lists are far from identical...maybe 5 on both lists.

DS and MM can rank them better than any of us Im sure.

[sam h]

the problem with your question is that you're judging brunson and slim against other players based upon tournament success. This is probably not the best basis for evaluating "the greatest" poker players.

From what I understand, Brunson is one of the best cash game players in the world. If he hasn't done much on the tournament circuit of late, its because A) he was boycotting the World Series for years and B) tournaments in general aren't worth his time. That's not to say that he would be one of the best tournament players if he devoted himself full time to them. But he'd probably still be a top player.

Slim, as far as I've heard, has always been overrated as a poker player, both in tournaments and cash games. He's more of the same generation as Brunson, rather than in the same class.

[Nottom]

Absolutley, I think aggressiveness is rewarded more in ring game play where you can take advantage of a slight edge over your opponent. In a tourney, you're better off avoiding marginal situations until late in the event. Many players don't make the proper adjustments.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I was merely using Doyle as an example. The basic idea of the question was are todays players better than those before them? The answer has to be yes, but at the same time older players also could have gotten better if they were really serious about playing poker and practiced and studied. I just think more weight should be put in their victories today than in those of the people before them.

[MRBAA]

From everything I've read, Brunson was a total freak -- a great poker player with the balls of the highest stakes gamblers. He'd be among the best in any era. One big difference, as in all sports, more good players mean one player can't dominate the way he or she could in the past. If anyone win's back to back world series of poker titles now, it would be very impressive.

[Rushmore]

If he hasn't done much on the tournament circuit of late, its because A) he was boycotting the World Series for years and B) tournaments in general aren't worth his time.

But, I, uh, but, well...

I'd say winning a WSOP event (Mixed) this year and a 4th at the Bellagio (NL Holdem) event would probably indicate some level of expertise.

$250K on a limited number of entries is a fair amount of chump change for someone "not doing much."

[huzitup2]

get involved in this; it seems to be a no-win situation for anyone who responds.

If one says that the Brunson-like players of days gone by were better they risk being seen as some sort of poker groupie.

*

If you say today's players are better (ergo the oldtimers were not really THAT good ) you are apt to come across as begrudging them their success.

- Remember, the "oldies" had NO worthwhile books.

If they wanted to learn strategy, they had to "pay tuition" (unless they were fortunate enough to have a mentor).

If they wanted to learn the math, they had to calculate it themselves, pay a scholar to do so for them, or "guestimate".

*

My conclusions:

1. The oldtimers who TRULY excelled MUST be considered to be among the greatest of the great.

2. ALOT of the oldtimers used wholly unethical means - in many cases this included outright cheating - to achieve their sucess. (I won't mention names, but be assured I am no talking out of my ass. I have an older friend who - while never hitting the bigtime - spent a ton of time around the bigger games of yesteryear, and has shared hair-raising tales of the "s--t" that occurred).

3. 95%+ of the bigger games were no limit; put ME - a moderately talented (at best) - N/L player up against a table full of imbeciles and I'd get as much of the money as any of those old "superstars" used to get, the only difference being it would take me a little longer.

*

In a way it's apples and oranges; since N/L cash games are almost gone there is no way to compare the abilities of the "oldtimers" to the skills of today's [limit] players.

*

Since many of them have passed on the point is moot. However, with all due respect for the dearly departed, I would LOVE to climb into a time machine and travel back 50 years to play LIMIT holdem against some of the N/L "stars" of that era.

I might not mind taking some of them on today given the fact that many of them have never taken the time to avail themselves of the excellent works on LIMIT HOLDEM (and other games) that have been out there for the last 25 years.

Was Leonardo DaVinci a greater mind than Einstein ?

The former was an INVENTOR (who, for those few of you who were unaware) designed a prototype for a "flying machine" (a/k/a airplane) that would have FUNCTIONED; granted it could have used some sanding of the rough edges but it WOULD have worked !

*

Einstein - one of the greatest minds of all time - had a formal education AND a number of collaborators to assist him with MOST of his work.

*

I could go on and on.

Edison vs. Marconi vs. Bill Gates . . .

The list is endless.

*

Todays elite players are - in my NOT so humble opinion - better at the game.

The stars of days gone by excelled in other areas.

*

I appologize for the fact that after all that I never did give a definitive answer - the problem is I don't think there is one.

In closing, let's take a look at Ted Williams - considered by anyone who knows anything about the game - to either the best, or one of the top 3 or 4, greatest hitters of all time.

Excepting for a few single season accomplishments, ALL of his records have been or will be shattered.

Well, Mr. Williams didn't have a personal trainer; he traveled to and from alot of cities by bus (not on a private plane) and he lost almost 5 yrs of his career to military service.

(It need to be mentioned even if he'd had those 5 yrs, few if any of his career records would still be intact).

So then, should we start a "thread" about TW vs Barry Bonds ?

*

I'm sure it would be a long one; I'm equally sure it would never arrive at a conclusion.

Best wishes,

- H

[ThaSaltCracka]

I really liked your response and the reason I put the question out there in the first place was because I was just curious what people thought about it. There is obviously not a definitive answer, however it makes for an interesting discussion.
I think I have come to the conclusion that a player like Brunson was the greatest of his generation, I think that still means he is great when compared to modern players. The best comparision I have seen was your DaVinci and Einstein, that makes perfect sense.

[sam h]

By not doing much, I meant not playing much, which he hasn't.

The tournaments he has played he's done very well in, as you noted.

[sam h]

Overall, the players are probably better today. But many of the best players in the world, like Doyle or Chip Reese or our very own Ray Zee, have been around since the 70s or beforehand.

The top tournament pros are not the best poker players. So I don't know how much weight should be put in their victories regardless of when they occurred.

[Tommy Angelo]

The difference/similarity between ring games and tournaments is the same as the difference/similarity between tennis and racquetball.

That a person might work hard at tennis and raquetball says nothing about the relative depth or difficulty of the games, but only speaks about the person.

That someone might have great adaptiveness at one game, but not the other, says nothing about the games, but only speaks about the person.


Tommy