Chris Moneymaker is a champion.  He definitely had some really crazy suck outs to get to the final table.  One thing I admire about his play in that WSOP Event was that he had a plan and stuck with it.  Chris Moneymaker has a good ability to put people on hands and sense weakness.  Chris Ferguson won the Main Event once and he isn't considered a one hit wonder.  One main difference between Chris Ferguson and Chris Moneymaker is that Chris Ferguson now iss more marketable.  For some reason Moneymaker was the reason that a lot of people are playing now and commonly in poker and a lot of things in life, he is only as good as his last deal.  There are thousands of players who have great skill in poker and all are vying for the championship.  In my opinion, Chris Moneymaker has acheived something that a lot of us dream about.  He has nothing to prove to me and more importantly he has nothing to prove to himself.  He will always hold the Title of WSOP Champion.  Now as far as Sam Farha beating him in the WSOP, Sam Farha did not outplay him.  Moneymaker outplayed him with some really incredible well timed bluffs in that final table Chris Moneymaker was the better player.  Sam Farha has not really had any significant placement in any Hold'em Events since 2003.  In fact Chris Moneymaker has earned $101,000 more in Hold'em since that event than Farha.  It was Farha however that did claim a bracelet in Omaha Hi/Lo in 2006 earning himself $398,560.  But if your talking about Hold'em, Moneymaker has been better since 2003.  Again Sam Farha is more marketable than Moneymaker, that's why you see him more often.  The viewing public likes Farha better than Moneymaker.