[sqwisssssss]

[ QUOTE ]
he would not be as succesful as he was twenty years ago. he crushed the fields mainly because he was one of the very few agressive players. against nowadays maniacs his style would not fit that well. but still he would be one of the best

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree but what ranking does one of the best fall into these days?

mike caro said that you can take the best player and the 150th rated player, put them on a same tournament table everyday and it would take a few years for the results to show the difference.

i dont think donkaments is a good gauge for poker skillz.

i also dont think stu would be one of the best in cash games today either........not if he has a drug problem or tilt issues which he had.

theres a lot more to the overall picture of being one of the best other than just having talent. lots of other factors that have to be balanced with the talent.

i think it should be more of a question of, "would stu have the potential to be one of the best these days?"

i say yes.