Just wondering what makes a single winner of a game a champion and the best?. Someone ships the W.S.O.P main event and is classed the world champion yet just because they won a single tournament means there the best, or best for that year. Im just trying to understand how it works. Shoudnt the best players be classed over the long run. I notice ratings and ranking sites go on ITM. Everytime I go on OPR there is someone with a 99% rating and after looking at there stats they acturally suck but just managed to ship a single big game as someone has to win it. And me. Yes we all know I suck but still have shipped games just not a big one, So if I shipped the sunday milion or WSOP or something I would be one of the top players rated in the world but its really BS. Good players have bad runs so why make these major tourneys sound like only the winner is the best in the world?. Anyhow, This isnt a rant, just dont understand becuase Ive seen some so called worlds best one hit wonder pros play and they really do suck at poker, not that im any better, just saying. And it goes for some sports games as well. Money is the only reason. Players either qualify with skill or 'just buyin' and rookie can do it.
So what Im trying to say is shouldnt ratings and poker fame go on positions placed over a longer run?

If you shipped the WSOPME you wouldn't be too far from the top of the money list just from that alone, but no rational person is going to call you the best poker player in the world or even one of the best. It's a single tournament. Still, it does carry prestige and I'd love to win the main event myself. Dream come true ldo.

Regarding comments that so called top players make dumb plays, I don't doubt they do every so often, BUT in poker there's such a fine line between genius and insanity that it's extremely difficult for people who play at much lower levels to critique their play. This is especially true if you haven't seen all of the prior hands and are trying to evaluate a particular play in a vacuum.