Was Stu Ungar really a great poker player? - Page 3

prana · #21 07-04-2005, 03:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The man is on record to have won ten of the thirty major tournaments he entered over his lifetime.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be "on record" as in "totally unverifiable claim that is wildly more likely to be false than true, but has been repeated so many times that it has become gospel in the minds of many."

Or, conversely, you have someone in mind who knows for certain exactly which tournaments he entered and didn't cash.

People are such suckers.

[/ QUOTE ]

think ur just jealous honestly. I know you got money but this just irks of hatred.

Leonardo · #22 07-04-2005, 04:14 AM

He is way overrated. He beat just 73 and 75 players in the his first WSOPs. How does Johnny Chan not rate way above him? Two in a row then 2nd? Against bigger fields? Even when he won in 97 it was only 311 opponents. His cash game was a joke by all reports and as for the 10 of 30 MAJOR tournaments, how major were they? You can guarantee by todays standards they were a joke. If you organise a 10k buy-in and have 73 players these days everyone would think it a joke, didnt Ben Affleck win a tournament that size ? He must be a great.......

nolimitpro2005 · #23 07-04-2005, 04:17 AM

stu only beat doyle in that world series when he cracked doyle's top two with a gutshot. outdrawing doyle isn't exactly evidence of brilliant playing. on RGP doyle said stu wasn't even in the top 10 players he's played against. no one's saying stu was a bad player, his 'legacy' is just being challenged by skeptical people who don't believe everything they're told. it seems he was a great no limit tournament player.. but that doesn't make him the greatest poker player ever.

prana · #24 07-04-2005, 04:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
He is way overrated. He beat just 73 and 75 players in the his first WSOPs. How does Johnny Chan not rate way above him? Two in a row then 2nd? Against bigger fields? Even when he won in 97 it was only 311 opponents. His cash game was a joke by all reports and as for the 10 of 30 MAJOR tournaments, how major were they? You can guarantee by todays standards they were a joke. If you organise a 10k buy-in and have 73 players these days everyone would think it a joke, didnt Ben Affleck win a tournament that size ? He must be a great.......

[/ QUOTE ]

wow if beating 73 of the most prominent players in the world makes me overrated so be it. I'm down.

Daliman · #25 07-04-2005, 04:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
He is way overrated. He beat just 73 and 75 players in the his first WSOPs. How does Johnny Chan not rate way above him? Two in a row then 2nd? Against bigger fields? Even when he won in 97 it was only 311 opponents. His cash game was a joke by all reports and as for the 10 of 30 MAJOR tournaments, how major were they? You can guarantee by todays standards they were a joke. If you organise a 10k buy-in and have 73 players these days everyone would think it a joke, didnt Ben Affleck win a tournament that size ? He must be a great.......

[/ QUOTE ]

You will not find a single knowledgeable poker player on the face of the earth that says Stuey's cash game was a joke.

You really should learn not to post when you have less than no clue what you are talking about.

Daliman · #26 07-04-2005, 04:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder how Barry Greenstein would rate him?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wonder no more! When www.barrygreenstein.com comes back up after maintenance, look under player profiles.

NYCNative · #27 07-04-2005, 05:14 AM

Or you can look at Google's cache right now.

clutch · #28 07-04-2005, 05:38 AM

Was he a great poker player? Yes. He did win some major tournaments and he was highly respected by many players who are still around.

How great? Who really knows. There's no way to pin it down. You have to weigh his record along with the opinions of the people he played against.

Is he the greatest ever? I don't see how anyone could ever dominate a game like poker to the point where they can be clearly listed as "The Greatest of All Time." Is he in the top 10? Could be, who knows. He could make a final table / win a bracelet every once in awhile these days, I'm sure. There's no doubt he had talent.

Keep in mind that much of the legend has to do with the fact that he's dead.

Howard Treesong · #29 07-04-2005, 05:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]

That would be "on record" as in "totally unverifiable claim that is wildly more likely to be false than true, but has been repeated so many times that it has become gospel in the minds of many."

Or, conversely, you have someone in mind who knows for certain exactly which tournaments he entered and didn't cash.

People are such suckers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what to believe about Stuey. I've spent some time talking to some of the old guard about Stu, who I never met, and some of them tell some pretty amazing stories -- both of his talent and his degneracy. You're no doubt right that the stories are exaggerated, but even if only half of them are true, it's still pretty impressive. How would you rank him against the new Chan-Brunson standard, there, Paul? He does have THREE world championships, does he not?

slik · #30 07-04-2005, 05:52 AM

This post is ridiculous.