I have an issue with this concept. Most of us will think of who did the best in one particular discipline of the game. The way I try to think of it is kind of like DCC.
The guys who win masters of the table are IMO the best PLAYERS. Tournaments can often be a coin toss, and gambling has some merits of measurement, but at the end of the day measuring players from a more "all-around" perspective is the best way to go in my opinion. This is why I consider Alex Pagulayan, Dennis Orcollo, Efren, Shane, Earl, Cory, Daz and some others to be leaps and bounds ahead of some of the "up and coming" pros.
IMO its the all around that makes a player a true champion. There is a reason the MVP in basketball isn't awarded to a player who is good at just one thing say shooting for example otherwise Kobe would have had a few. Its the all around. That to me is the true X Factor and is what defines a champion. The all around ability, their heart and their accomplishments.
The guys who win masters of the table are IMO the best PLAYERS. Tournaments can often be a coin toss, and gambling has some merits of measurement, but at the end of the day measuring players from a more "all-around" perspective is the best way to go in my opinion. This is why I consider Alex Pagulayan, Dennis Orcollo, Efren, Shane, Earl, Cory, Daz and some others to be leaps and bounds ahead of some of the "up and coming" pros.
IMO its the all around that makes a player a true champion. There is a reason the MVP in basketball isn't awarded to a player who is good at just one thing say shooting for example otherwise Kobe would have had a few. Its the all around. That to me is the true X Factor and is what defines a champion. The all around ability, their heart and their accomplishments.