[benkahuna]

[ QUOTE ]
Tiffany Williamson finished in the top 20 in the WSOP with a much bigger field than McManus. Shouldn't she also be qualified to write a poker column for a major newspaper.

[/ QUOTE ]


I find the notion of qualification to be inane used in this context. She can write and she's played poker, therefore she's qualified to write about poker. We're not talking open heart surgery here. Does she possess the same qualifications as her colleagues in bridge and other games? Clearly not.

Tiffany became extremely marketable and it almost doesn't matter if she knows even less about serious poker strategy than she appears to know. She will help the NY Times produce profit because of her high finish and her membership in two minority groups in competitive poker. It's only entertainment. She's payed to write, thus qualified.

I think she's as qualified as anyone to write about her own experiences in poker. And I could see those experiences being quite interesting and maybe worth my time.

From a strategy standpoint, she has credibility just based on her finish. I wouldn't listen to all of her advice based on her play of which I'm aware, but even in her musings, some innate sense of tournament poker is present when she talks about intimidation and aggression.

I don't find your comparisons particularly applicable to Tiffany mainly because I don't see writing prowess nor poker skill and achievement that important for someone to write a poker article, even for the pomposity that is the NY Times. They are features I prefer in a writer on poker, but it's pretty clear the poker world doesn't revolve around my desires which appear to be the same as yours.


P.S.

I knew who Williamson was (I was live for the AQ all in pf that sucked out on the guy's KK), was just waiting for you to get to the point.amson finished in the top 20 in the WSOP with a much bigger field than McManus. Shouldn't she also be qualified to write a poker column for a major newspaper.

[/ QUOTE ]