Post a reply

Re: ROS was right that John Higgins is the best

Postby McManusFan

Andre147 wrote:Another bull article. Same as when some pundits were clearly claiming Higgins was the GOAT after his 2011 World title.


It's not really the same as that, this has a lot of scientific analysis behind it. It still doesn't feel like the right result, the algorithm probably puts undue importance on something.

Re: ROS was right that John Higgins is the best

Postby TheRocket

Its not just Hendry. How can anyone put Carter above the likes of Ding,Ebdon,Doherty or Bingham? Why is Ryan Day in the Top20 but not John Parrott? Maguire on 11? And why is Ronnie only the 8th best player in the 2010-2019 decade if he was the most successful player next to Selby?

Its just nonsense from top to bottom.

Re: ROS was right that John Higgins is the best

Postby Prop

Andre147 wrote:Another bull article. Same as when some pundits were clearly claiming Higgins was the GOAT after his 2011 World title.


I remember Steve Davis getting all emotional and saying that at the end of the final. Made me laugh <laugh>

Re: ROS was right that John Higgins is the best

Postby SnookerFan

Andre147 wrote:Another bull article. Same as when some pundits were clearly claiming Higgins was the GOAT after his 2011 World title.


That's just commentary waffle, isn't it?

As soon as Ronnie started winning again, they all forgot who Higgins was. In 2008, when Judd knocked Ronnie out of the Grand Prix, the BBC started spunking themselves about how Judd had overtaken Ronnie's mantle. That was before Judd had won anything.

Not having a go at Higgins, Ronnie or Trump because they're obviously all amazing players. But the pundits do tend to overstate these things. The BBC in particular. I wouldn't place any importance on it.

Re: ROS was right that John Higgins is the best

Postby vodkadiet1

You cannot argue against the science. And the beauty of the study is there isn't any personal bias.

Johm Higgins is the greatest snooker player ever!!!

Re: ROS was right that John Higgins is the best

Postby HappyCamper

vodkadiet1 wrote:You cannot argue against the science. And the beauty of the study is there isn't any personal bias.

Johm Higgins is the greatest snooker player ever!!!


So is four greater than seven now.

Re: ROS was right that John Higgins is the best

Postby SnookerFan

vodkadiet1 wrote:You cannot argue against the science. And the beauty of the study is there isn't any personal bias.

Johm Higgins is the greatest snooker player ever!!!


Who is Johm Higgins?

Re: ROS was right that John Higgins is the best

Postby Wildey

vodkadiet1 wrote:You cannot argue against the science. And the beauty of the study is there isn't any personal bias.

Johm Higgins is the greatest snooker player ever!!!

This study shows how bad scientific modelling is.

Re: ROS was right that John Higgins is the best

Postby Pink Ball

The fact that everyone seems so upset about O'Sullivan being behind Higgins is quite telling about where people's priorities lie, really.

Yeah, that's bullocks, but it's nowhere near the greatest source of bullocks in this thing. Ali Carter the 12th greatest player of all time? Ahead of Peter Ebdon and Ken Doherty? Five places ahead of Ding Junhui, who's even better than Ebdon and Doherty?

And that's not even the worst bit. Where the hell are Ray Reardon and Alex Higgins? I don't know, but they're behind Ryan Day, apparently.

Scientific modelling is grand, but it does ultimately depend on what humans tell the system to do. And therein lies its fatal flaw.

Re: ROS was right that John Higgins is the best

Postby vodkadiet1

The algorithm only works 100% when comapring players of the same era. Therefore Higgins is greater than O'Sullivan but you cannot make a comparison with Higgins and for example Hendry or Steve Davis.

Re: ROS was right that John Higgins is the best

Postby SnookerFan

Pink Ball wrote:The fact that everyone seems so upset about O'Sullivan being behind Higgins is quite telling about where people's priorities lie, really.

Yeah, that's bullocks, but it's nowhere near the greatest source of bullocks in this thing. Ali Carter the 12th greatest player of all time? Ahead of Peter Ebdon and Ken Doherty? Five places ahead of Ding Junhui, who's even better than Ebdon and Doherty?

And that's not even the worst bit. Where the hell are Ray Reardon and Alex Higgins? I don't know, but they're behind Ryan Day, apparently.

Scientific modelling is grand, but it does ultimately depend on what humans tell the system to do. And therein lies its fatal flaw.


I pointed out how stupid the Carter thing was.

Re: ROS was right that John Higgins is the best

Postby Prop

Pink Ball wrote:The fact that everyone seems so upset about O'Sullivan being behind Higgins is quite telling about where people's priorities lie, really.

Yeah, that's bullocks, but it's nowhere near the greatest source of bullocks in this thing. Ali Carter the 12th greatest player of all time? Ahead of Peter Ebdon and Ken Doherty? Five places ahead of Ding Junhui, who's even better than Ebdon and Doherty?

And that's not even the worst bit. Where the hell are Ray Reardon and Alex Higgins? I don't know, but they're behind Ryan Day, apparently.

Scientific modelling is grand, but it does ultimately depend on what humans tell the system to do. And therein lies its fatal flaw.


Zaccly.

Re: ROS was right that John Higgins is the best

Postby Holden Chinaski

Pink Ball wrote:Scientific modelling is grand, but it does ultimately depend on what humans tell the system to do. And therein lies its fatal flaw.

Indeed. I was thinking about explaining this to Vodka, but I figured I had a better chance of explaining Newton's laws to a hamster.

Re: ROS was right that John Higgins is the best

Postby Wildey

Pink Ball wrote:The fact that everyone seems so upset about O'Sullivan being behind Higgins is quite telling about where people's priorities lie, really.

Yeah, that's bullocks, but it's nowhere near the greatest source of bullocks in this thing. Ali Carter the 12th greatest player of all time? Ahead of Peter Ebdon and Ken Doherty? Five places ahead of Ding Junhui, who's even better than Ebdon and Doherty?

And that's not even the worst bit. Where the hell are Ray Reardon and Alex Higgins? I don't know, but they're behind Ryan Day, apparently.

Scientific modelling is grand, but it does ultimately depend on what humans tell the system to do. And therein lies its fatal flaw.

yea Top 4 is neither here or there but Carter being so far ahead of Ding and Bingham makes the whole thing flawed as a method.

Re: ROS was right that John Higgins is the best

Postby Prop

I get the feeling that this project was quite precious to the statisticians. And there was there moment when the results came back, they knew deep down it was questionable, but they had to push it through and run with the results because it was their baby. To abandon it at that point wouldn’t have been a favourable option to them. But they know it’s not right.

Re: ROS was right that John Higgins is the best

Postby TheRocket

As I said, from top to bottom nonsense list. Neither is John Higgins the greatest nor are Maguire and Carter above the likes of Ding, Ebdon or Doherty or Bingham. And Day doesnt belong into the Top20 while Reardon,Alex Higgins or Parrott definitely do but they are not there.

To me it looks like the creators wanted to create "controversy" and seek attention with the whole thing and thats what they've done.

Re: ROS was right that John Higgins is the best

Postby vodkadiet1

TheRocket wrote:As I said, from top to bottom nonsense list. Neither is John Higgins the greatest nor are Maguire and Carter above the likes of Ding, Ebdon or Doherty or Bingham. And Day doesnt belong into the Top20 while Reardon,Alex Higgins or Parrott definitely do but they are not there.

To me it looks like the creators wanted to create "controversy" and seek attention with the whole thing and thats what they've done.


Using the rule of reporting by exception - 'The algorithm only works in its entirety when comparing players whose careers run directly parellel.' Therefore a comparison between Higgins, Williams, and O'Sullivan is 100% accurate. But comparing Higgins with Hendry or Davis leaves a margin of error which needs to be taken in to account when interpreting the data.

Re: ROS was right that John Higgins is the best

Postby TheRocket

I agree. A comparison between O'Sullivan,Higgins and Williams is absolutely accurate. They're from the same generation and they have played in the very same era. You cant really compare Rod Laver with Roger Federer but you can and should compare Federer with Nadal and Djokovic.

And while Federer,Nadal,Djokovic are still battling it out , O'Sullivan will probably end his career with more World titles than Higgins and Williams.

Re: ROS was right that John Higgins is the best

Postby HappyCamper

did any of youse actually read the paper? they just took a mathematical tool which was developed for ranking academic papers by citations, or web pages by links; that had been applied to some other sports. then they scraped snooker results from cuetracker and plugged them in to see what happens to snooker matches. before performing some simple comparisons to the official rankings, and a ranking based purely on number of match wins. at no point does it claim to be some definite or objective truth.

Re: ROS was right that John Higgins is the best

Postby lhpirnie

TheRocket wrote:I agree. A comparison between O'Sullivan,Higgins and Williams is absolutely accurate. They're from the same generation and they have played in the very same era. You cant really compare Rod Laver with Roger Federer but you can and should compare Federer with Nadal and Djokovic.

And while Federer,Nadal,Djokovic are still battling it out , O'Sullivan will probably end his career with more World titles than Higgins and Williams.

Indeed. There was a tennis study a few years ago that 'proved' Jimmy Connors was the best tennis player of all time. It was done by the University of Illinois...


I really don't think GOAT debates go anywhere, because of the problem of different eras. Objectively, the standard improves over time (with ups and downs of course). There will be players in the future who play to a higher standard than anyone past or present today. And so on, so long as snooker is a healthy sport.

Does that detract from the achievements of today's players? No. We are lucky to have witnessed some great players. Future generations should have their greats too.

Re: ROS was right that John Higgins is the best

Postby Holden Chinaski

HappyCamper wrote:did any of youse actually read the paper? they just took a mathematical tool which was developed for ranking academic papers by citations, or web pages by links; that had been applied to some other sports. then they scraped snooker results from cuetracker and plugged them in to see what happens to snooker matches. before performing some simple comparisons to the official rankings, and a ranking based purely on number of match wins. at no point does it claim to be some definite or objective truth.

Good point.

Re: ROS was right that John Higgins is the best

Postby TheRocket

lhpirnie wrote:
TheRocket wrote:I agree. A comparison between O'Sullivan,Higgins and Williams is absolutely accurate. They're from the same generation and they have played in the very same era. You cant really compare Rod Laver with Roger Federer but you can and should compare Federer with Nadal and Djokovic.

And while Federer,Nadal,Djokovic are still battling it out , O'Sullivan will probably end his career with more World titles than Higgins and Williams.

Indeed. There was a tennis study a few years ago that 'proved' Jimmy Connors was the best tennis player of all time. It was done by the University of Illinois...


I really don't think GOAT debates go anywhere, because of the problem of different eras. Objectively, the standard improves over time (with ups and downs of course). There will be players in the future who play to a higher standard than anyone past or present today. And so on, so long as snooker is a healthy sport.

Does that detract from the achievements of today's players? No. We are lucky to have witnessed some great players. Future generations should have their greats too.

good point but when it comes to a higher standard in the future and the standard improving over time I'm not that sure. I think Snooker can become some sort of dead sport in the future. We're already watching how its becoming an old mans game and there is a lack of talents. Certainly from an UK point of view. Dont think Snooker will be ever a big thing in mainland Europe like people thought it could be after Brecel became pro.

Future will depend on the Chinese talents imo.

Re: ROS was right that John Higgins is the best

Postby McManusFan

HappyCamper wrote:did any of youse actually read the paper? they just took a mathematical tool which was developed for ranking academic papers by citations, or web pages by links; that had been applied to some other sports. then they scraped snooker results from cuetracker and plugged them in to see what happens to snooker matches. before performing some simple comparisons to the official rankings, and a ranking based purely on number of match wins. at no point does it claim to be some definite or objective truth.


:goodpost:

Re: ROS was right that John Higgins is the best

Postby lhpirnie

TheRocket wrote:
lhpirnie wrote:
TheRocket wrote:I agree. A comparison between O'Sullivan,Higgins and Williams is absolutely accurate. They're from the same generation and they have played in the very same era. You cant really compare Rod Laver with Roger Federer but you can and should compare Federer with Nadal and Djokovic.

And while Federer,Nadal,Djokovic are still battling it out , O'Sullivan will probably end his career with more World titles than Higgins and Williams.

Indeed. There was a tennis study a few years ago that 'proved' Jimmy Connors was the best tennis player of all time. It was done by the University of Illinois...


I really don't think GOAT debates go anywhere, because of the problem of different eras. Objectively, the standard improves over time (with ups and downs of course). There will be players in the future who play to a higher standard than anyone past or present today. And so on, so long as snooker is a healthy sport.

Does that detract from the achievements of today's players? No. We are lucky to have witnessed some great players. Future generations should have their greats too.

good point but when it comes to a higher standard in the future and the standard improving over time I'm not that sure. I think Snooker can become some sort of dead sport in the future. We're already watching how its becoming an old mans game and there is a lack of talents. Certainly from an UK point of view. Dont think Snooker will be ever a big thing in mainland Europe like people thought it could be after Brecel became pro.

Future will depend on the Chinese talents imo.

Very possibly. Snooker could die out like billiards did. In which case names like Ronnie O'Sullivan and Stephen Hendry will be forgotten, as Tom Newman, Walter Lindrum, etc. have been. Then nothing matters.


As for snooker's globalisation, we have seen that it takes much longer than expected. No Chinese players have yet reached their full potential. But it's still basically a UK tour (even out of pandemic time), and the overseas guys are always 'playing away from home', in football terms. Maybe that will be different in the future.


   

cron