[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]

Robert Williamson III: I think Moneymaker's game has come a long way. He is a solid player. I don't think he plays that many events anymore. Raymer plays a lot of events but I think even he would tell you that he rose to the occassion that year .. but is he consistently going to win? No. If Moneymaker spent more time playing, he could be a consistent winner.


[/ QUOTE ]

All that most of us have to go on is what we see on TV and read in the press. Based on that, my impression has been just the opposite.

Based on what I have seen, Greg's play has been solid, but not world class. Moneymaker has not shown anything on TV since the WSOP.

Based on rewatching the 2003 WSOP, my impression is that Moneymaker is an instinctive, street-smart player who played over his head in the ME. My impression of Greg is that he is an analytical student of the game, and that he played a solid game in the 2004 ME, and got lucky. That is not to say that he is a bad player. You have to get lucky to win the ME. I just don't think that he can play at the same level as Doyle or Lederer or Ivey or Greenstein.

Williamson's remark about Moneymaker improving strikes me as odd. Again, just an impression based on media exposure. My impression of Moneymaker is that he does not read and think about the game enough, he relies too much on instinct and playing experience. He doesn't need to play more, he needs to study the game. I think that Raymer will improve faster than Moneymaker will, because he continues to be a student of the game. I think Chris has peaked.