I've heard similar sentiments expressed by Scott Huff and his panel on The Poker Beat, but the fact that people are still voting in the "boomers" is totally understandable, it will continue, and I personally hope it DOES continue.
The vast majority of the new "young guns" or whatever you want to call them have something in common: they're a bunch of boring, uncharismatic, interchangcheable, leather assed twenty-something online basement dwellers who sit there stonefaced hidden behind their sunglasses and baseball caps, without any one of them in particular getting very much TV time (as opposed to '03 and '04, when you'd see the same guys over and over and actually had a chance to get to know them).
Televised poker is about stories and the clash of personalities. It's not about how good somebody is or the kind of results he's been getting. Who cares? Watching poker for the skill is like reading Playboy for the articles. Fine for poker nerds, but nobody else is interested, or should be expected to be.
The boomer pros are simply more interesting, charismatic, and fun to watch. Your last paragraph says it all. They came from diverse backgrounds, were with the game through different eras and changes, and one gets the feeling that they are something more than simply assembly line machines - mere products of the boom itself - that have spent almost the entirety of their (brief) adult lives in front of a screen clicking buttons and sliders.
This is exactly why people liked Dennis Phillips so much. It was like, "oh my god, a real person." Or at least not yet another monosyllabic, emotionless kid with sunglasses and a cap and zero identifying characteristics, ready to 5-bet with his A9o.
News Comments
PokerNews Op-Ed: The 2010 WSOP Tournament of Champions, Where it’s 2004 All Over Again (6)
697 days ago
I've heard similar sentiments expressed by Scott Huff and his panel on The Poker Beat, but the fact that people are still voting in the "boomers" is totally understandable, it will continue, and I personally hope it DOES continue.
The vast majority of the new "young guns" or whatever you want to call them have something in common: they're a bunch of boring, uncharismatic, interchangcheable, leather assed twenty-something online basement dwellers who sit there stonefaced hidden behind their sunglasses and baseball caps, without any one of them in particular getting very much TV time (as opposed to '03 and '04, when you'd see the same guys over and over and actually had a chance to get to know them).
Televised poker is about stories and the clash of personalities. It's not about how good somebody is or the kind of results he's been getting. Who cares? Watching poker for the skill is like reading Playboy for the articles. Fine for poker nerds, but nobody else is interested, or should be expected to be.
The boomer pros are simply more interesting, charismatic, and fun to watch. Your last paragraph says it all. They came from diverse backgrounds, were with the game through different eras and changes, and one gets the feeling that they are something more than simply assembly line machines - mere products of the boom itself - that have spent almost the entirety of their (brief) adult lives in front of a screen clicking buttons and sliders.
This is exactly why people liked Dennis Phillips so much. It was like, "oh my god, a real person." Or at least not yet another monosyllabic, emotionless kid with sunglasses and a cap and zero identifying characteristics, ready to 5-bet with his A9o.
News Comments
The Online Railbird Report, Vol. 13: The $3,000/9,000 Game (1)
1101 days ago
These people are getting to be god damn lunatics.