[Todd Terry]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice post, but I think the lack of variance in chess and tennis makes the Kasparov/Federer analogies fairly meaningless. I think that's the real reason why there has never, and probably will never be a well-defined "best player" in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Golf is probably a closer analogy in this respect. The best golfers in the world lose much more often than they win. Prior to Tiger coming along, due to the depth of the modern fields, it was generally believed that no one would ever challenge the all-time records in golf -- Nicklaus' 18 majors, Snead's 81 (I think) wins. Utter domination was thought to be unachievable. Not only has Tiger achieved what was perceived to be impossible, he has inspired others such as Vijay and Phil to raise the levels of their games and put together seasons which but for Tiger's brilliance would have to be considered among the best of all time given the level of competition. Perhaps someone will come along in poker and make our current beliefs about maximum win rates, ROI and variance look naive.