Thanks for the responses.
I still don't get it. I recognize Earl is a great player. And after reading some of the replies in this thread, I see that he was not always known as a poor sportsman. However, I still don't see that he has contributed anything positive to the sport.
For example, Allison Fisher is as great (or greater) womens champion as Earl was mens. Yet she is a great example of excellent sportsmanship, win or lose.
Freddy "The Beard" has written quite possibly the single greatest book on bank shots.
Jennifer Berretta has been featured in countless non pool related magazines, offering billiards exposure to people that otherwise might not be interested.
Grady Matthews, it appears to me, has gone out of his way to help teach the finer points of the game to younger players.
David Sopolis, AZ's very own Blackjack, has offered free advice and guidance for those wishing to learn 14.1.
These are positive contributions made by great ambassadors for the sport. I could name more examples, but I hope I've made my point.
Earl, on the other hand, could best be described as Amarillo Slim described Nick The Greek, big I little you. IMO, that is not good for the sport. It's just as bad, if not worse, than pool being presented by television and movies as a sport for hustlers.
When Benny Binion began the World Series of Poker, he learned very quickly that not all great poker players were good for poker's image if poker was to be widely accepted and respected by the general public. Pool could learn a lesson from that.
Was Earl a great player in his prime? Absolutely. Has Earl contributed positively to the sport as a champion and an ambassador? It doesn't appear so.
Good Rolls,
Rasta
My apologies to anyone whose name I may have misspelled.