I ran across a post on the Matusow Truth Blog that I thought was worth a mention. The site is run by Scott Matusow, Mike’s brother and most of the time it’s pretty basic stuff about Mike. But the post that I’ve taken issue with is Scott’s analysis of the final table of the WSOP main event. I think everyone is entitled to their own opinion about Jerry Yang’s performance but Scott’s analysis is a tad rough to people who may or may not deserve it. For instance, he says:
There was one hand that a player named Child’s donated allot oif chips to Yang by laying down QQ like a total moron..
Moron? Really? Obviously people may or may not agree with Child’s play but to call the guy a total moron seems a tad harsh.
Okay so perhaps one hand got him really bent and he voiced his disapproval in a manner that was less than constructive. But wait, there’s more.
Now we come to the moron Hilm
Now Hilm is a moron too.
But Hilm must be a double moron because he gets swiped at again in the same post.
Moron Hilm turned over something like 85 d.. a low ball flush draw.. HE RAISED ALL IN WITH ONE PULL TO COME with nothing but 8 outs!! follow?
Really, is this kind of name calling and insulting necessary?
And the name calling isn’t over yet. Speaking on Watkinson’s play Scott says:
Lee Watkinson did the same damned thing, Gave Yang his chips. Yang opened up for 1 million, Lee pushed in 9 million more.. Yang again called with A9, Lee had A7..
another moron giving away his chips..,
Is that really any reason to call the guy a moron? I haven’t seen the final table so I can’t make any specific comments but even if you disagree with Watkinson’s play it’s a pretty huge leap between disagreement and calling the guy a moron.
But Scott’s not even saving his insults for players. He bashes Phil Gordon saying:
and of course Phil Gordon, who has only won one tourney his whole life says ” man what a sick call by Yang” No Phil, ITS TO BE EXPECTED FROM A CALLING STATION!!
When I checked the Hendon Mob database Scott Matusow isn’t even listed which means that Phil’s one tourney victory is still one more than Scott’s so why he feels it necessary to call into question Phil’s credentials is beyond me. When you look at that sentence there are so many ways he could have voiced his disagreement with Phil without trying to belittle him. It’s really out of line.
All in all, I don’t necessarily disagree with some of Scott’s analysis. What I think is noteworthy is the name calling and insults he casts at the other players and commentators.