How should we view pre-2003 WSOP bracelets?

[MeanGreenTT]

[ QUOTE ]
[What he did was 99% luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

LMFAO

[beekeeper]

[ QUOTE ]
Winning one today is tough because the fields are larger, but the fields are much weaker. Winning one back in the day was tough because even though the fields were small a bigger % of the field were good players. So on balance I think these factors cancel each other out.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's got to be tougher to survive b/c weaker players gamble more, thus skill alone won't help top players through the top stages of the tournament--they have to have more luck, as well. Just look at how unlucky Daniel got while playing great poker (at least in the hands we got to see).

What an awfully designed poll

"Just as legitimate as winning one today; a bracelet is a bracelet"

True, but I'm not sure you understand the word 'legitimate'... of course they are just as legitimate, but they are also not as impressive.

"Impressive, but winning one today is more impressive - the old records should be asterisked"

Well the first part is true, but then I can't vote for this option because what the hell are you thinking with the remark about old records being asterisked?

"Totally worthless -- the game has changed and the fields have grown so much in the past 2 years that all pre-2003 records should be tossed out, and are little indication of someone's greatness"

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... wow, okay, I voted for this option because all the options sucked.

[zuluking]

[ QUOTE ]
What an awfully designed poll

[/ QUOTE ]

More proof this is the worst forum ever.

[SoftcoreRevolt]

To those saying that the fields back them were much stronger, this is true, but not totally true. While the fields were a higher percentage of pros, the fish were even more clueless back then than they are now. So dead money still was a big factor in those tournaments.

[UATrewqaz]

one could arge that beatin ga field of say 70 very very good top pros is more impressive than beating a field of 70 top pros, 500 decent players, and 4000+ complete retards.

[tonypaladino]

Winning the 197x, 198x 199x WSOP took a shitload of skill. Winning 2003-> takes more luck than skill.

[daryn]

i actually think bracelets won in the past are MORE respectable. today it's almost like a lotto

[Autocratic]

[ QUOTE ]
i actually think bracelets won in the past are MORE respectable. today it's almost like a lotto

[/ QUOTE ]

In the past, you'd in theory need less skill (to get through less tough players) and less luck (to get through smaller fields). But I can't see how it'd possibly be easier. Hell, a couple of lucky draws could have practically won if for you in '78.

[Bluff Daddy]

I think everyone is severely over rating the level of play in the earlier tournaments. While most of these guys might have been professionals how many of them were excellent no limit holdem tournament players?