Why is Norman Chad so prone to hyperbole?
Already arguing over whether or not the Justin Phillips/Moto Mabuchi hand was a bad beat over in the bbbv forum. At the end of that hand Norman says something along the lines of "When you flop a set of aces and river quad aces and still lose, now that's a bad beat!" He says it while disregarding the fact that he hasn't even been watching the whole hand to know how it unfolded.
Here he is claiming Peter Eastgate delivered the baddest of bad beats ever to Scott Montgomery YouTube - 2008 World Series of Poker
- Worst Beat EVER! Peter's the favorite when the chips go in and yeah it sucks for Scott cuz the cards made him sweat/believe he was winning and Peter did catch a 1 outer on the river, but Peter was at 62% counting Dennis Phillips' mucked 6 when the chips went in, and Scott was short stacked.
I've got a feeling that there are hundreds if not thousands of hyperbolic statements like these made by Norman Chad. Thing is, you don't hear it from other commentators. You don't hear it when watching the aussie millions, or on hsp, or the wpt. I can't remember Gabe Kaplan or Mike Sexton getting all worked up over a player getting a non-bad beat after the chips go in. Just Norman Chad.
So is it just part of his schtick or what?