| |
BGonline.org Forums
Postmark Deadline in Two Days
Posted By: Chuck Bower In Response To: Postmark Deadline in Two Days (Stick)
Date: Wednesday, 30 January 2008, at 6:06 p.m.
The problem with rumor is, well, that it's just that. If someone has experience playing against another in money games and decides that person is one of the best money players and therefore deserves to be on the list, then fine. But to hear of (or even casually watch) someone's money play isn't (IMO) worth much.
When I see tournament results and I have reason (and there's a lot) to believe the tournaments were open (among other requirements), then I have an objective piece of data that someone performed. Lucky, of course. But there are 500 names on my tally and I take the top 32. It does happen (and it HAS happened on my ballot, I believe) that a non-expert gets very lucky over a two year period. But that's the price I pay for objectivity. I don't contend that my ballot is the best, but I'll take it any day over those ballots that are based upon historical reputation, and worse, rumor.
I haven't finished my ballot but if Neil doesn't make the top 32, yes, I'm leaving him off. No offense to Neil, and besides knowing that he's a great player, he's also a friend so it's double painful for me. But for me to change my rules arbitrarily to allow someone in whom I know is good enough to be on it (and in fact HIGH on it) doesn't fit my idea of objectivity. Put it this way: what about all the people who deserve to be on it but I don't know about? It wouldn't be fair to them. If someone wants to be on my ballot the criteria are clear -- get out there and play the open tournaments and perform well in them. I don't have to know you. I don't even have to like you. (And, yes, there are some people on my ballot whom I don't particularly care to buddy up with.) Perform. That's all it takes.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.