Since it seems we are not going to get more votes on this, here is which player said what.
The first quote was from Cloutier, the second from Brunson, and the third from Sklansky. Oddly, we voted inversely to the success of the players. Sklansky got the most votes, and he is the least successful, TJ was second, and Doyle is the most successful and got no votes at all.
Sklansky got the most votes, and he is the least successful.
Doyle has 10 WSOP bracelets, 31 in the money, and two main event wins.
TJ has 6 bracelts, 23 in the money, and came in second in the main event twice.
Sklansky has 3 bracelts (none for Hold 'Em), 21 in the money, and his highest main event finish was 23rd.
There is no question that they are all great players. And there are many ways to figure out how to measure who has had more success. But WSOP bracelets are a good measure, and main event finishes are another good measure. Face it, that main event win is the most coveted prize in poker.
I'd be interested to know, Steveg, by what measures can you claim that the success of these three players should be ranked in a different order than I have done?
sindri, Doyle is famous for playing successfully on a regular basis in the biggest cash game in the world. He is generally recognized as the best cash game player in the world. TJ is generally recognized as the most successful tournament player in the world.
When Poker After Dark had Legends Week, Sklansky wasn't even at the table with TJ and Doyle.
The reason I think Sklansky's non-Hold 'Em bracelets mean less is because Hold 'Em is the main game now. To me, Sklansky's wins in Draw and Omaha demonstrate archaic talents rather than contemporary talent. Like being really good at hula-hoop.