If you had the choice between winning the WSOP Main Event then disappearing into obscurity and never winning anything again or being a respected pro player who regularly cashed in big events for a number of years?
Lets assume both win the same amount of money. One has the ultimate poker win (but might be considered lucky) where the other is a more respected, better player who's never taken a big win down but is consistent.
Comments
Easily the latter for me.
Jerry Yang or Phil Ivey would be the better example.
Ivey has never won the world series main event and probably never will do given the huge numbers of runners that play it but that doesn't matter - he has won shed loads, proved himself time and again and has consistently been called the best player in the world for years by both his fellow pros and the general fan base and I'm pretty sure it must be a lot better being Phil Ivey than being Jerry Yang or Robert Varkoni (Quantum Leaping into Phil Ivey for a day would be pretty cool but Quantum Leaping into Yang or Varkoni would be the most boring episode ever).
A snooker analogy came to mind in that Jimmy White has never won the World Championship but for decades so many young snooker players aspire to be him - I doubt many young kids when first picking up a snooker cue aspire to be Shaun Murphy or John Parrot (and can anyone even remember that they actually both did win the World Championship).
It's Steve Davis, mate - one of my sporting idols when I was a wee nipper. A lot of people didn't like/appreciate him in the eighties when he was winning everything... primarily because it's a peculiarly British phenomenon to knock someone who is doing well in their chosen field. Only when he was no longer dominating the sport - circa the early nineties - did the public take to him and his dry sense of humour
But, as for the question:
I wouldn't want to fade into obscurity. I'll take the bunch of second/third/fourth places please.
dont you just love philosophy lol
have fun and good luck