WSOP 1988
As I like to do every so often when writing these historical articles, I think it would be beneficial to take a look at a certain aspect that is at the core of the American character. To put it as simply as I can: we do not like dynasties in this country.
As I like to do every so often when writing these historical articles, I think it would be beneficial to take a look at a certain aspect that is at the core of the American character. To put it as simply as I can: we do not like dynasties in this country. After all, the United States was formed as a rebellion against the monarchy of Great Britain and the repression which that crumbling institution brought to bear upon its subjects. The Boston tea party was not just a chance to get drunk, dress up in war pain and cause some mayhem in downtown Beantown. Our founding fathers knew what they were doing when shaking off the shackles of the established classes of royalty.
And yet, despite this rebellious tendency running so deep within our collective psyche, we as Americans have embraced dynasties in a number of arenas: sports, entertainment and - yes, regrettably - even politics. It is true that back into 1999 when we elected George H. W. Bush to be our 41st president, we did not known that we were starting what would become a political dynasty that would have unimaginable repercussions on the history of our nation and the world. And yet, the funny thing about history is that it keeps surprising even those who think we have learned from studying it.
But, I do not wish to start a heated diatribe here. Because, as you must know, Peter Thorn is always careful to refrain from revealing any political bias in his writings about poker. Therefore, I would like to talk about an entirely different dynasty that first began to take shape in 1988. This was at the World Series of Poker when Johnny Chan went on to win his second consecutive title.
It is certainly true to say that the majority of the legitimate poker establishment did not show the great Mr. Chan a huge amount of confidence to win his first title back in 1987. To be blunt, I was absolutely blown out of the proverbial water by that turn of events. However, unlike some of my colleagues (who, out of respect, I will not name) I was not one of the poker analysts at the '88 tournament who wrote off Johnny Chan as a one-time fluke.
What he had shown me the previous year was that he had all the makings of a true champion. It is not bragging for me to say that I predicted he would win the big prize again in 1988, any he did just that. By doing so, he laid the second stone in one of the greatest poker dynasties we have ever seen. And there need be no argument or partisan acrimony about that.
by Mason Raymond
