Where do you rate winning the WSOP?

[sammysusar]

basically someone had to win the wsop me and the someone was likely to be an unknown on numbers alone. maybe raymer winning two yrs in a row or someone winning twice in 5 yrs. would need to be on that list. id have to say though in poker it would be important to look at a larger group of tournies like all the wpt and wsop events to judge greatness.

[TransientR]

[ QUOTE ]
Looks like the flack has come my way.

My point with this post, is that, can anybody name another sport where the person who wins the event has to play his/her event for 7 days solid at least 12 hours a day (84 hours in a week for those who don't want to do the maths).

1) You need mental strength to rival any chess player
2) the physical strength to not fall asleep/keep awake/alert
3) Intellectual ability to think and analyse situations quickly

These three attributes alone are tough enough to do for any sort of prolonged period, but to do them for 7 days continuously is a huge feat and something I think is worthy of mention among the other great sporting acheivements of our time.

I will also make a bold statement now:

No player from this day forth, will win the WSOP big one twice in their lifetime! Ever! Period!

What do you reckon to that?

Jon

[/ QUOTE ]

1. I don't think you "need the mental strength" to rival any chess player. Most hands you fold, in chess you have to move.

2. "Physical strength" please. Sitting on your ass for hours at a time is not at all comparable physically to what Lance Armstrong has to do in any stage of the Tour. I'm sure Lance could easily sit and play poker nearly forever without fatigue. If you subjected the competitors at the WSOP to a Tour time trial, no less a mountain climb, better have a fleet of ambulances on hand to haul away the dead and dying [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

3. Yes in poker you have to analyze situations quickly, certainly compared to chess, but perhaps that is just because most plays in poker do not need to be analyzed in the depth that many chess plays require. I do think nerve and psychological cunning plays a major part in separating the best poker players from the rest. I don't think the math of poker, the importance of position, pot odds, implied pot odds, etc., is anything a reasonably intelligent person can't master with decent effort.

I think winning the WSOP is a great achievement, but considering the luck factor in the game, the winner is unlikely to be the best player in the world, while for the other sporting achievements you cite, there is no doubt that the winning person is the best there is.

Frank

[lozen]

Wayne Greztky missed but I woould still vote Lance

[TheCroShow]

might as well throw up there "winning the lottery"

[detroitplayer]

[ QUOTE ]
Wayne Greztky missed but I woould still vote Lance

[/ QUOTE ]
Howe > Gretzky. Hockey is a physical game by nature and the greatest hockey player cannot be someone who did not participate in that aspect.

[Eegs]

Somewhere along the lines of winnig the lottery...

[Sabrazack]

If we are comparing sport achievements with poker why dont we have Johnny Chans 2 time win and runner up years? However, it could still just be due to variance. Armstrong winning again and again is quite simply not.

[BlackAces]

Lance wins (soon to be) 7 Tours, and it's not even close.