***
Dear
Mr. Lingus,
I will proceed to go over each and every line about what you took the time to write about (or some parts from
Wikipedia which is always a very resourceful site to go to).
Make no mistake, I greatly appreciate the fact that you
love Harrington as much as you do, and view him still as being a
Top-10 player. We'll see how we look at it differently.
I must disagree, as Dan Harrington is still very much a top-ten player. I mean that NOW and all-time. For my argument, I quote a portion of Dan's Wikipedia page:
This thread - at least in the beginning - was never about who are the "
Top-10 All-Time" greatest players, it's about who are the top players of today, and over the last few years (as in the past 2-3). It's also
not a "
Top-10", but a "
Top-40" list. I also agreed that "
Action Dan" is still very relevant today. He is a well respected player, and I'm not going to degrade his game, just to prove a point. A hundred years from now, if one were to put all the names mentioned throughout the thread, Harrington could perhaps be in the "
Top-10 Greatest Players of All Time". I don't know, because it's all very subjective.
Old Attachment (Invalid)
"Action Dan" in action...
"His solid play allows him to make it to many final tables at large events. He won the World Series of Poker (WSOP) main event in 1995 for $1,000,000 and made three other main event final tables, placing 6th in 1987 for $43,750, 3rd (out of 839 players) in 2003 for $650,000, and 4th (out of 2,576 players) in 2004 for $1,500,000. As defending champion in 1996, Harrington made another deep run in the main event, finishing in 17th place and earning $23,400. He also cashed in the 2009 main event, finishing in 252nd place for a $32,963 payout.
Yes, in historical context, Harrington is a great player. No question. Again, I'm talking about now, as in '06-09. Making it to 252nd place is solid (famous actor
Lou Diamond Phillips finished
186th,
even better!), but he was going much deeper into the WSOP Main Event 5-years ago, which is enough time that's past to suggest that there's been a bit of a drop-off in his game, or that the much larger playing field has started to catch up to him. So, most of his money was made prior to the '06 (up until now) cut-off mark that I'm looking at.
Old Attachment (Invalid)
LDP finished 186th in this year's WSOP Main Event
The same year as his main event win, he also won a bracelet in the $2,500 No-Limit Hold'em event for $249,000 and the Seven-card stud event at European Poker Open in London. He made his first final table at the World Poker Tour (WPT) in 2005, winning $620,730 for his second place finish to Minh Ly in the Doyle Brunson North American Championship. In 2007, he won the Legends of Poker for a prize of $1,634,865.
Again, the first couple of tournaments mentioned are prior to '06. He should surely get credit for winning the
Legends of Poker tournament, so that's one. Okay.
As of 2008, his live tournament winnings exceed $6,500,000.[4] More than half of his live tournament winnings ($3,491,513) have come at the WSOP.[5]
Yes, but how much of that was won prior to '06? And remember, there's a lot more money today than before. That
Legends of Poker tournament (won at the
Bicycle Club), is a
HUGE chunk of that overall total, but during the era he was probably at his peak, the prize money was nothing compared to today.
Harrington, Doyle Brunson, Carlos Mortensen, Scotty Nguyen and Joe Hachem are the only five people to have won the World Series of Poker Main Event and a World Poker Tour title."
An argument can be made - based on that achievement - that perhaps Harrington could be one of the "
Top-10 Greatest Players of All-Time", and maybe "
Top-10 Living Players of All-Time".
And, he just finished third in the "Champions Invitational" held this past WSOP, playing against 19 other former main event winners.
That's great, but it was a field of only 19 people; even if they're former
WSOP Main Event winners.
Greg Raymer didn't even show-up until later on in the day, as I'm sure
Phil Hellmuth did as well. In that tournament, none of the strongest players in the world today (say for a few) were amongst the 19. Great reputations, great players, but the best of the best in '09 (for the most part) weren't there, and Harrington was 3rd, nice, but not overly noteworthy.
I think his work speaks for itself.
Yes, if we're looking at his career going back from the mid-80s until today. One can certainly make an argument that he is one of the greatest players ever. I highly doubt Harrington is one of the
5 greatest poker players
ever, but an argument can be made that he could be in the "
Top-10 All-Time" (counting those who've played for at least 20-years). But an argument can be made that
Nolan Ryan was the greatest baseball pitcher
ever, because he's famous, he has the strike-out records, he played a long time, ect. He's most definitely
NOT, but one can still make that argument.
But no, there's no way he's in the
Top-10 players - who're at their peaks - in the game today. Harrington is
still great (not arguing that point), still dangerous, but I think his prime years were from
'95-04 (and likely going a bit before that period as well). Since '04, he's not been the force that he used to be.
Harrington's game by design, is to go deep into tournaments, almost always making the money (like
Kathy Liebert and
Phil Hellmuth), but he's not amongst the games greatest winners. He has
2 WSOP bracelets, and he's played in a lot of tournaments each year, every year, for MANY years. They both were won in
1995, and that's 14 years ago.
Stu Ungar won the
Main Event in '97, and has been dead for
11 years now. Should the corpse of Ungar be in the "
Top 10" this year?
Old Attachment (Invalid)
Stu Ungar with the guy from the First Web Casino. 
Just to give you an idea.
Howard Lederer also has
2 bracelets, has won almost the same amount of money (and has probably played in fewer tournaments), and there is no one on this planet, making a push for "
The Professor" to be in the "
Top-10" (and he's almost 20-years younger than Harrington).
Old Attachment (Invalid)
If his class is in session... I'm sleepin'... zzzzzzzzzz...
Just in case you skipped over all of my counter-points, the list was made up of the best players
now,
today,
going back no earlier than '06. Harrington is still a great player, just not "
Top-10" by today's standards.
If we included contributions to the game, in other ways, Harrington
arguably writes the best books on the subject of poker.
I was going to say that he could be the best player that has come out of
The Mayfair Club, but no way. I'd put
Erik Seidel before Harrington. I completely forgot about Seidel, who'll always be vastly underappreciated. Now THAT was a glaring oversight on my part.
Steed
***
I'm not going to degrade Harrington, and he should be on there. 
Who (see below) and Why (see above
and below)???
