making final table should also be discounted pre 2000

[PokerPaul]

final table finishes are also trracked as a players record.

However, from earlier years its just not fair to credit a final table finish on a 22 person tournament as one in a 800+ person tourney.

How about the year amarillo won.....they only started with 9 players...so does everyone get credit there for final table appearance?

[Daliman]

While your assertation is pretty ludicrous, it has a bit of truth to it, but remember, the players at the time back then were almost all accomplished players, not just someone who happened to get lucky for a few days or a week.

That said, Slim's title should barely count as a title, as Doyle bowed out 3 handed with a decent stack claiming he was sick, when he actually quit because he didn't want the notoriety at the time, thinking it would ruin him for his cash-game suckers.

[drewjustdrew]

I would say this difference in skill is close to negligible in a 200+ tourney vs an 800+ tourney. 22 people is a different story.

But then again, isn't poker about $$$$$$. Final tables don't really count for anything beyond bragging. By the time someone gathers enough final tables to pass the current leaders and use it for endorsements, it will have less pull than Ohura at a trekkie convention.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]

How about the year amarillo won.....they only started with 9 players...so does everyone get credit there for final table appearance?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and none of them except Slim gets credit for finishing in the money.

The WSOP is mutating at such a geometric rate, comparisons stretching over more than a few years don't have any meaning.

It's not the same game any more, and things like ITM or final table aren't the same thing. The WSOP ME in the early 1970s were much more like the recent Tournament of Champions than like today's ME.