Tanks Article!!!!!!!!!!!

[Nem]

Ok so if Tiger Woods done all his money on drugs and loose women,would he still not be one of the greatest players to ever grace the game?

Yes.

Maradona spunk alot of his money of Cocaine but he is still the greatest footballer to "grace the game"

[AndrewT]

http://www.blondepoker.com/index.php?q=node/2199

Top story, front page...

Oh right *looks sheepish*

For some reason I expected it to be in the Tankbank.

Maybe when new things are posted on the front page, they could be credited to whoever wrote it, rather than whoever submitted it - my eyes scanned down the list of submitters and I just saw snoopy's name.

*I realise I'm just making excuses for my own donkiness*

[AndrewT]

OK, I've read the article now.

As Tikay said, the key is whether the player's off-field antics had a negative impact upon their game. With George Best and Alex Higgins, it undoubtedly did - without the drinking they'd have been able to play at the tops of their games for longer than they did. Similarly with Stuey, without the drugs he'd have been able to be a top poker player for longer, and would have won more bracelets (he was playing back when winning bracelets was easier than it is today)

[mjrevie]

(he was playing back when winning bracelets was easier than it is today)

True, but that shouldnt take away what he did. He could only beat the field that was put in front of him. I dont think that from 2002 onwards he would have definitley won a bracelet as the field size has became ridicolous, but that woudlnt have made him a bad player.

I've read his book and when you dont have your own major physcological issue, addictive personality, etc, then its easy to dismiss hia actions as someone who lacks the control or will power to choose the 'sensible' course. Mental illness, such as Stu had, is a disease of the mind just as cancer is a disease of the body. Just because we cant see his brain breaking down and dieing, doesnt mean it isnt!!

[JungleCat03]

Great debate!

I don't think you can denigrate Stu Ungar's poker talent by highlighting the negative aspects of his life.

He clearly had a massive talent for poker and just because in the view of many he wasted the money he won in other areas of his life, this shouldn't detract from the recognition he receives for his poker gifts.

The old cliche about genius being a hair's breadth away from madness is one that is perenially confirmed.

Maradona won a world cup virtually single HANDed (ill get over it one day) yet had a coke problem.

George Best was a magnificent player but hopelessly addicted to alcohol.

Kurt Cobain wrote an album that stormed the world yet only a few years later blew his brains out.

Einstein was a visionary physicist but could never find his comb.



People point at these icons and say, if only they hadn't done this, hadn't smoked that, hadn't drunk this and had known a good hair salon, they could have been so much more. To me the genius of these folk is closely interwoven with the unique facets of their personality and lifestyle. Pull at the loose thread and the entire tapestry may unravel.

Maybe you could have had a drug-free Stu and Diego, an interminably jovial Kurt, a sober George and a neatly coiffered Albert, but would they have been the same men who took the world by storm and left their mark in history?

Don't bet on it...

[thetank]

Thankyou for your kind words Hairydude and others. If the article did offend anyone, I apoligise. I'll confess to having phrased it in a manner that might spark a little controversy.

Some great posts on this thread and a fantastic one by bolt.

Having never had the good fortune to meet the man, (Stu Ungar that is, not bolt) anything I say is third hand and from a somewhat ignorant and speculative perspective. That's something we can all be guilty of when it comes to those who are in the public eye, to those whom books have been written about. That's not about to change. It wasn't my intention to insult or belittle anything he had achieved in his career. Just one man's opinion.

I don't think it's a fair comparisom of Ungar to Higgins, Maradonna or Woods. To play snooker, football or golf, you need a cue, a ball or a club. To play poker at the top level, you need money. You can play poker with someone else's money, but not if you've already betrayed their confidences on multiple occasions.

Although I do understand that there is more to life than cash, that's one of the things you get from sporting success. Losing it doesn't take away what you have already achieved. In the case of poker in particular though, it does somewhat limit your chances of building on that success as it's an essential tool of the trade.

The principle reason I wouldn't list him among the all time greats, is that I believe that list should be populated by role models with the whole package.
Don't get me wrong, you can f*** up as often as like and still make the grade, so long as you eventually learn from your mistakes. It's not so much the drug problems, or the sports betting, but that when he had some money to his name, he would often times play over his head. Game selection is where he falls down in my eyes and why I would consider him for "most feared" player, but not "greatest."



The main point I was trying to make in the piece, was not about Stuey, but about how going bust is considered a right of passage in poker. While positive things may come of it in the long term, too many people I see are overly proud of "having the balls" to have risked it all in one game.

It's less romantic, but unparraleled natural talent aside, I've got acres more respect for people who are blessed with discipline the size of grapefruits.

[bobby1]

I haven't read the article yet, but I will do so in the next 10 minutes. 

Before doing that I will give an opinion on what I have read on this thread and what I already know.

I don't think there is any doubting that Stu Unger was a poker great, in terms of his success at the table.  However, I don't think he was a great man.  He had an addiction to gambling, drugs and alcohol.  Rather than fight these addictions he chose a cowardly way to live his life and died at a very young age through bad management.  Thats bad management of his lifestyle choices and his finances.  I don't doubt that had Unger cleaned up his act it would probably have taken much away from his game.

IMO he is the equivalent to George Best or Alex Higgins, an absolute genius who gave it all away. 

Earlier in this thread someone asked that if Tiger Woods lost his money through bad investments would that alter his image of being the one of the greatest golfers of all time?  Clearly the answer is NO, there is a major difference from making a bad investment that gambling all your money away or indeed from blwoing in on a copious ammount of drugs and alcohol.

Ask the same question of Alex Higgins or George Best did the publics perception of these two greats change due to they way they conducted their lifestyle?  The answer to this one is yes.  Although there was a public outpour of sympathy for best when he died many people didn't care and indeed didn't see it as a major loss when he died.  Ultimately he got what he deserved.  Not only did he waste his own kidney but he wasted a kidney that someone more needing could have had.

Stu Unger a legeng and a looser - RIP!

People respect true sporting genius, Steve Davis, Hendry, Shearer tho these people are not always liked. In fact they are regarded as 'boring'........but they love flawed sporting genius because at the end of the day we cannot relate to being a genius but we can relate to being flawed......and they give us all hope that we too could reach the heights that these people have achieved even carrying our emotional baggage whilst disliking the people that seem superhuman(Davis) because they seem to be perfect and jealousy/grudging respect is felt instead of love.

I dont think Stu Ungar would have swapped his success for anything even tho many aspects of his life seemed a mess. I think the real beauty of his life story is that it isnt how far you fall that counts, its how far you bounce back and making a personal judgement whether all the bad times he had were worth going through to make the good times even sweeter.

I didnt think the article was offensive but I did draw a breath at the phrase 'dead dude'.I dont think that was needed and it has certainly brought on a good debate.

[Karabiner]

f John Travolta went broke tomorrow, would he still not be a great actor?

He wasnt a good actor in the first place!

lol I was thinking that too- anyone see that scientology film he made-what a lot of bollocks!!! in fact scientology is a farce in itself

Considering that Scientology is a religion that was invented by a science-fiction writer...........

[Hairydude]

I know- theres a hilarious South park episode that totally rips the pi$$ out of Scientology- you should download it-its called in the closet and Tom Cruise is in it(obviously not the real tom cruise)

Tank I wasnt offended by the said article I just disagree and have my own opinion on it- I agree there is a semi-romantic appeal to the flawed genius tho!!

[ifm]

Offensive was a strong word but once sonopy quoted it i couldn't change it.

Bolt made the best post in this thread, class.
I just don't understand how you can judge someone's success by their failings?, it makes no sense to me.
The very fact that every poker player knows who Stu Ungar was is testiment to his greatness.

[Bongo]

Considering that Scientology is a religion that was invented by a science-fiction writer...........

Isn't he the man who said: "The best way to get rich quick is to start a religion", he then did just that and got rich quick.

[snoopy1239]

Offensive was a strong word but once sonopy quoted it i couldn't change it.

Bolt made the best post in this thread, class.
I just don't understand how you can judge someone's success by their failings?, it makes no sense to me.
The very fact that every poker player knows who Stu Ungar was is testiment to his greatness.

I disagree with tank and some of the other comments on here too.

I don't think what you do outside the game is relevant to your ability as a player.

He was one of the greats because he was good at poker, full stop. Okay, so he did all of his money on drugs and so on, but that's not bad money management in terms of the game, and just isn't poker related. That's his outside life and what he chooses to do with the money won from poker is irrelevant to his skill level as a player.

If Pele had splashed all his money on gambling or something, would we suddenly start saying that he was a poor player?

[Nem]

Offensive was a strong word but once sonopy quoted it i couldn't change it.

Bolt made the best post in this thread, class.
I just don't understand how you can judge someone's success by their failings?, it makes no sense to me.
The very fact that every poker player knows who Stu Ungar was is testiment to his greatness.

I disagree with tank and some of the other comments on here too.

I don't think what you do outside the game is relevant to your ability as a player.

He was one of the greats because he was good at poker, full stop. Okay, so he did all of his money on drugs and so on, but that's not bad money management in terms of the game, and just isn't poker related. That's his outside life and what he chooses to do with the money won from poker is irrelevant to his skill level as a player.

If Pele had splashed all his money on gambling or something, would we suddenly start saying that he was a poor player?

 

[The Rivercard]

The true gauge of a great player is to ask his or her peers. I believe if you asked Brunson,Chan,Helmuth or reece they would say that Stu Unger was a great poker player. He was just a loser off the table which makes it all the more tragic that such a talent should not be around today.

[GlasgowBandit]

The point I tried to make was that Stu was a great player, I don't think thats questionable but he was a looser.  In terms of he lost all his cash to drugs, dring and gambling.

TK said other night if he was giving advice to anyone playing poker just now it would be to stay away from the gaming tables after a poker event as its the easiest way to blow cash after a decent win. 

Ungers play is not in dispute its the way he chose to live his life and yest that does reflect on how people judge him.