What if Stuey were still with us

[toots]

What if Stu Ungar was still alive, and still at the top of his game (and we presume therefore, still winning tourneys right and left)?

How do you suppose he'd be received here?

I'm not suggesting that anyone living is his equal for NLHE, but I am suggesting that he'd probably get the same lack of respect that any other winning player - be it "by the Sklansky book" style or otherwise - that so many current pros get on this board.

My doctorate is telling me why this might be, but if I said what I was thinking, I'd be flamed right out of the forum.

[Nottom]

I'd guess he would be thought of much like Gus Hansen where half the board thinks hes great and the other half thinks he's the luckiest fish ever.

[Autocratic]

It's obvious that he's given tons of respect in death. No one can deny his play, as some deny the talent of plenty of top-tier pros (read: Gus). I've seen plenty of people here and on other poker boards make rather harsh comments towards drug users. I find it hard to believe that he would be as accepted as a Daniel N. or the like.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
I find it hard to believe that he would be as accepted as a Daniel N. or the like.

[/ QUOTE ]

With three world championships to this credit, I'd expect he'd be (and is) given more respect.

[TStoneMBD]

hellmuth doesnt receive much respect (rightfully so) and he has won 2 WSOP already. ungar winning 3 doesnt necessarily mean he will be given respect by the intelligent side of the poker community, but he probably would have. i have heard numerous times that stu was a struggling cash game player at the high levels, which doesnt give much credit to his capabilities however.

[Tevyee]

[ QUOTE ]
hellmuth doesnt receive much respect (rightfully so) and he has won 2 WSOP already. ungar winning 3 doesnt necessarily mean he will be given respect by the intelligent side of the poker community, but he probably would have. i have heard numerous times that stu was a struggling cash game player at the high levels, which doesnt give much credit to his capabilities however.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hellmuth only won one WSOP main event. Stu Ungar is arguably the best No-Limit tournament player ever. Many people called his performance in the '97 WSOP the best exhibition of No-Limit play ever! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Autocratic:

I actually briefly played with Stu Unger a couple of times in full ring games. The unfortunate thing about him is that even though he was clearly a great no limit tournament player, he was also a favorite to lose whenever he sat down in a side game. And because of this, he can't rate great in my book.

There are a few players who have excelled in both areas. Dan Harrington is one, and perhaps Daniel N is another, but he's still a little new on the scene for me to be absolutely sure.

Best wishes,
Mason

[binions]

And he won 10 of them.

He was the best NL Tournament player ever. On top of being the best gin player in the world at his prime.

Greatness is in the eye of the beholder I suppose.

Query: Can a side game player be considered great if he does not perform consistently well in tournaments?

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi binions:

How do you know he played in exactly 30 tournaments?

In addition, I do know of one that he won where there were a total of 10 entries.

Now with that being said, there is no question that he was very good at no limit hold 'em tournaments.

Best wishes,
Mason

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi binions:

How do you know he played in exactly 30 tournaments?

In addition, I do know of one that he won where there were a total of 10 entries.

Now with that being said, there is no question that he was very good at no limit hold 'em tournaments.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

I witnessed none of them.

My info comes from Barry Greenstein's website where he says Ungar "won 10 of the 30 NL tournaments he entered that had a buy in of $5K or more."

http://www.barrygreenstein.com/stu-ungar.htm

You are correct to point out that the fields were much smaller then.