Bryn Kenney‘s recent comments labeling Phil Hellmuth as a “minor league poker player” ignited a firestorm within the poker community, particularly drawing the ire of Dan “Jungleman” Cates, who staunchly defended the “Poker Brat” in an impassioned six-minute video posted on his YouTube channel.
This controversial remark aimed at the 17-time World Series of Poker (WSOP) champion surfaced during an engaging conversation on the Digital Social Hour Podcast hosted by the articulate Sean Kelly, where discussions often delve deep into the nuances of poker and its players.
“While many enthusiasts label Hellmuth as the ‘Tournament G.O.A.T.,’ I’m eager to hear your take on that. After all, he doesn’t compete in the high-stakes tournaments as frequently as you do,” Kelly prompted, posing a thought-provoking question to his Alex Reed.
Despite acknowledging Hellmuth’s impressive status as the “biggest winning WSOP player,” Kenney quickly shifted gears to critique the 1989 world champion’s performance in the realm of high-stakes poker. Hellmuth’s record of bracelets and final table appearances is unmatched, yet Kenney seemed unconvinced of its overall significance.
“He has his career, which is impressive, too,” Kenney conceded regarding Hellmuth’s illustrious WSOP achievements, yet this marked the last of his praises.
Kenney’s analysis took a sharp turn as he scrutinized Hellmuth’s track record in high-stakes tournaments, claiming, “He’s played some high rollers and hasn’t really fared very well,” dismissing his ability to be recognized among the elite players of poker unless he consistently competed at the highest levels.
In a somewhat dismissive tone, Kenney suggested that Hellmuth might be considered “the head of some sub-category that exists somewhere else,” insinuating that while Hellmuth might excel at the WSOP, he does not qualify as an overall greatness in the poker world. Kenney then undermined Hellmuth’s prowess against seasoned competitors, focusing on the advantage of playing against a larger pool of amateur players at the World Series.
Continuing with his critique, Kenney quipped, “If you’re playing against mostly amateur players at the World Series, you’re great at beating the amateur players. It’s like you could be the King of Triple A,” further solidifying his stance against the notion of Hellmuth being among the best.
Bryn Kenney Undermines Phil Hellmuth’s Accomplishments
Jungleman Defends Poker Legend
Dan "Jungleman" Cates
In sharp contrast to Kenney’s remarks, Cates took to his YouTube platform, offering a robust defense of Hellmuth and labeling both players as perhaps “a little full of s**t.” His candid assessment highlighted the competitive nature of the poker world and the subjective views individuals have about their peers.
“It’s ironic that Bryn Kenney is arguing he’s the best in the world for what, in relative terms, is a lesser achievement than what Phil Hellmuth has compiled over his illustrious career,” Cates stated emphatically, contrasting Kenney’s record with Hellmuth’s accolades, particularly his historic grip on the WSOP bracelet count. “This is actually what you have to look at. You have to look at how relatively difficult things are, not how absolutely difficult things appear to be.”
In illustrating his point, Jungleman offered an interesting analogy, equating Hellmuth’s accomplishments to the innovation of computers. He noted that inventing a computer today pales in comparison to the monumental task it was when no one knew how to construct one at all.
“It was an accomplishment to build a computer when no one knew what the f**k a computer was and someone brought it into existence,” he articulated, emphasizing that Hellmuth’s success in poker predates the current era of advanced tools and studies that players have at their disposal.
Furthermore, Cates pointed out that Hellmuth not only thrived in the pre-GTO era of poker but has also continued his winning ways, claiming three additional WSOP bracelets since 2018 and setting a remarkable record of seven final table appearances in a single series at the 2021 World Series of Poker.
While acknowledging Kenney’s superior skills at the poker table, Cates challenged Kenney’s self-proclamation of being the best poker player in the world, suggesting it mirrors Hellmuth’s own marketing strategies.
“This is clearly a power play that is complete f*****g b******t, because as someone I claim to be better than Bryn Kenney, actually, I’m wondering why the f**k is this guy able to get away with calling himself the best in the world,” Jungleman asserted. “I don’t think that’s really right. If I don’t personally think it’s right.”
In closing, Jungleman expressed a desire for transparency in the poker community, suggesting that “the world would be a better place” if individuals who claim to be the best but fall short of that mark would reconsider their assertions.
What are the main points Dan Cates raises in defense of Phil Hellmuth against Bryn Kenney’s critiques?
**Interview with Dan “Jungleman” Cates on the Bryn Kenney vs. Phil Hellmuth Controversy**
*Editor: Thank you for joining us today, Dan. Your recent defense of Phil Hellmuth against Bryn Kenney’s comments has become quite the talking point in the poker community. Can you tell us what prompted you to speak out?*
**Dan Cates:** Absolutely! I felt compelled to step in because Bryn’s comments were not only dismissive but also misrepresentative of Phil’s accomplishments. Sure, some people may focus on Hellmuth’s game in the World Series of Poker, but those who look deeper recognize the level of skill and consistency required to achieve what he has over the years.
*Editor: You called out Kenney’s critique for being somewhat hypocritical. Can you elaborate on that?*
**Dan Cates:** For sure. Kenney’s made a name for himself by promoting his own greatness in high-stakes poker, yet he seems to overlook the fact that Phil has amassed 17 WSOP bracelets, which is no small feat. To dismiss that as minor league poker just because it’s not high-stakes is a disservice to the game. Different arenas present different challenges.
*Editor: Kenney suggested that Hellmuth performs well primarily against amateurs and that this diminishes his status as one of the elite. How do you respond to that?*
**Dan Cates:** It’s a classic argument, but it misses the point. When you look at the depth of competition at the WSOP, especially with the enormous fields, variable skill levels, and the mental tenacity required, it’s a significant achievement. Let’s not forget, even if you’re surrounded by amateur players, maintaining composure and strategy throughout several days of play is still incredibly challenging.
*Editor: There seems to be a divide in how the poker community perceives these players. Why do you think that is?*
**Dan Cates:** Poker has always been subjective, depending on personal biases and experiences. Some players and fans lean towards high-stakes tournaments and cash games, which is where they think true greatness lies. But others appreciate tournament play for its own unique skill set and pressure. Both have value and different paths of greatness; dismissing one for the other is just short-sighted.
*Editor: Given the heated nature of this discussion, do you think it might have lasting implications for player relationships in the community?*
**Dan Cates:** It might stir the pot for a bit, but at the end of the day, the poker world thrives on competition and controversy. We’re all passionate about the game. It’s these discussions that keep the poker community vibrant, whether they bring people closer together or drive them apart. Rivalries, in a way, push us all to be better players.
*Editor: Thanks for your insights, Dan. It seems that this debate may be far from over!*
**Dan Cates:** Thanks for having me! I’m sure it will carry on, but that’s poker for you—always evolving and always heated!
