Post a reply

Who is the greater player?

Poll ended at 23 Nov 2020

Paul Hunter
14
54%
Neil Robertson
12
46%
 
Total votes : 26

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby Holden Chinaski

Dan-cat wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:Hunter leading by eight votes to seven. I'm sorry, but that's complete heart over head stuff.


He beat Ronnie in his prime several times.

Indeed. He also beat John Higgins and Ken Doherty in Welsh Open finals. Hunter was a great player and showed lots of promise. Of course, we can't be sure what he would have achieved, but I personally think he would have had a great career. His Masters victories against MJW and Ronnie were brilliant.

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby Iranu

LDS wrote:
HappyCamper wrote:but his performance dropping when likely in the early stages from what would prove to be a terminal illness is not a good argument.


What is the good argument for Pink including him, when the criteria for this event is WSC performance?

Because that’s not the criterion. The most successful World Champions are seeded and all other World Champions are invited plus half a dozen non-World Champions. At no point can I see that WC performance is the only thing that matters.

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby HappyCamper

LDS wrote:
HappyCamper wrote:but his performance dropping when likely in the early stages from what would prove to be a terminal illness is not a good argument.


What is the good argument for Pink including him, when the criteria for this event is WSC performance?


Some Irish Nutter wrote:The other 24 players are made up of former world champions, while the most successful non-world champions have also been invited: Ding Junhui, Paul Hunter, Doug Mountjoy, Matthew Stevens, Jimmy White and Eddie Charlton.


reads as most successful overall career rather than wsc specifically, but mr ball would have to confirm.

do we really want joe swail to be in this fantasy?

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby badtemperedcyril

If its purely WSC then Ali Carter has more of a claim for inclusion, as a two time finalist and once losing semi-finalist. In fact, save for his run to the 2003 semi-final, Hunter's WSC record was quite poor.

If its based on career achievements then Hunter's three Masters titles easily gets him in. :win: :win: :win:

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby LDS

Iranu wrote:You say he’s at the level of McManus or Kirk Stevens despite winning more than both of them (and in my opinion doing so in probably the strongest era in snooker) by the time he died, and as we’ve established he was only 27. So he’d already won more and would in all likelihood gone on to win at least a couple more still.

I’m not sure how three Masters wins can be “Joe Johnson-esque”. One sure, possibly two, but three is more than just an anomaly. I mean look at Selby, he also won two Masters and got to another final while holding only one Welsh Open as a ranker (if I’ve read his Wiki right). It took him another two seasons to win another ranker.


You're only looking at outright wins. Which is the anomaly of Hunter. He seemed to be bottom or top. The comparison with Selby is interesting as Selby had already been a runner-up at the Worlds long before he won it, right at the early stages of his career, and went on to be a regular finalist at lots of events, he just didn't win them. Hunter on the other hand didn't have many finals at all, but those few he did get to he seemed to win. Hence the Joe Johnsonesque. Someone who is either round 1/2 or a winner.

Hunter's score sheet:

95/96 - 1 x SF
96/97 - 1 x QF
97/98 - 1 x W
98/99 - 1 x SF, 2 x QF
99/00 - 1 x SF
00/01 - 2 x QF, 2 x SF, 1 x F, 1 x W
01/02 - 2 x W
02/03 - 3 x QF, 4 x SF, 1 x W
03/04 - 3 x QF, 1 x F, 1 x W
04/05 - 1 x QF, 1 x SF

the 01/02 season where he won two titles, every single other event was either r1 or r2.

Now compare to McManus' early career:

90/91 - 1 x SF
91/92 - 2 x QF, 2 x SF, 1 x F
92/93 - 2 x QF, 6 x SF, 3 x F
93/94 - 2 x QF, 5 x SF, 3 x F, 1 x W
94/95 - 2 x QF, 1 x SF, 1 x F, 1 X W
95/96 - 3 x SF, 1 x W
96/97 - 3 x QF, 3 x SF, 1 x F
97/98 - 3 x QF, 1 x F
98/99 - 3 x QF, 2 x SF, 2 x F
99/00 - 2 x QF - and at this point McManus has been classified as 'gone off the boil' generally, as is a common thing to happen to players.

You can compare wins to Selby & ignore the wider stats, I can compare him to McManus and include wider stats. Neither of us is right and neither of us is wrong, but we are both allowed our perceptions. Its not something to get angry about.

Iranu wrote:As HC has said, a diagnosis doesn’t happen as soon as you get the disease. He’d been suffering stomach issues for a while from what I remember and it’s no surprise his form had dipped. With 2001-2002 I think you may been looking at 2003-2004 as he won the Welsh and Masters in 01-02. Regardss, show me a top player who has a good season every single season? Or alternatively show me a journeyman who wins the Masters during a poor season?


Well Ken Docherty won the Welsh Open twice and I regularly hear people say Ken underperformed generally away from the WSC. So I guess the point is, why did Hunter underperform away from The Masters? Ken was a finalist at the Master twice too. But then Ken was someone who regularly appeared in finals generally and won quite a few of them.

If I can regularly hear people say "Ken was a bit rubbish away from the WSC", why can't people be allowed to say "Hunter was a bit rubbish away from the Masters"?

Ken isn't a journeyman player, so I'm clearly suggesting Ken is a better fit for this game we're playing than Hunter. However, would people vote for Robertson over Ken in this competition? If Yes, then how can Ken be better than Hunter, Hunter better than Robertson, and Robertson better then Ken?

Iranu wrote:Referring to “the cult of the Hunter” is frankly offensive. I actually kind of agree with you about how people react when it comes to the loss of someone they don’t really know. But Paul Hunter was an attractive, likeable, talented person who was very popular even before his health problems and for you to dismiss that as a deranged cult is insane.


Not really. It's actually the reverse. We regularly refer to the cult of Higgins (Alex) or the cult of Ronnie fans and the like and no-one would comment. But you take offence when someone suggest a cult of Hunter? That's what the essence is. And we'll have a look at this in more detail in the next paragraph.

Iranu wrote:It’s one thing to question how the masses responded to his death, although even in that case I’d say there’s a huge difference between someone dying at 27 and someone dying at 90. Someone you’ve watched for years dying at 27 can make you question your own mortality even if you don’t care so much about the person himself and this alone can cause profound emotional response. Hell, people can break down over the death of fixtional characters.

But to call into question the legitimacy of players’ responses is a horrendous thing to say. “rubbish happens” indeed. These are people who no matter how well they knew Hunter would nonetheless have been spending significant periods of time around him for years.

Regarding this and the kid in your school: IT’S NOT ABOUT YOU. When a child dies, I don’t think some overwrought tributes are the worst thing in the world. It’s for the benefit of the family and the friends who DID know him. Likewise, any tributes by players even if insincere were given for the benefit of the people Hunter left behind.
[/quote]

All of which assumes that all people will react to death in the same way and that all people are supposed to have the exact same reaction to death. You have no idea how oppressive you're being.

A death can be many things to many people. It is not unusual for a culture to treat death not as a mourning of loss, but rather a celebration of life.

While there is obviously a lot of crying and wailing in the immediate wake of a death, the funeral and resultant 'celebrations' that are to follow can as equally be a happy time where everyone cherishes the life that has been had. People are allowed to be happy, joke, dance and generally make merry. To act as if the person was still there with you, sharing in the enjoyment they gave during their lifetime. "Having a beer on me."

I have an Auntie, for example, who loved life and was always very joyous & wanted her funeral to be a joyous affair. She even had "Come on Baby Light My Fire" be her choice of music for when she entered the crematorium.

Likewise, culturally, one of the most famous culturally relevant bands of the Hunter era was Bare Naked Ladies who had the smash hit "One Week" with the very famous lyrics "I'm the kind of guy that laughs at a funeral".

It's perfectly fine for you to have your perception of what death and reaction to death should be, but to force that onto others is actually the real "offensive" aspect of your position. To imply that there is only one way someone should allowed to react, only one way to respond and to only highlight people you think might be 'offended' by the wrong reaction.

I have nothing against Hunter. What happened to him was truly tragic & I wouldn't wish such a thing on my worst enemy. But I wouldn't let what happened to him sour my relationship with others not use his death to force my own projections onto other people, nor would I let it prevent me from discussing how other people reacted to his death.

I have no objection to you talking about how you perceived the time around his death nor how you wish to perceive others, but to speculate that none of the PR that accompanied his death was not over the top nor hysterical is as much speculation as me suggesting is was.

We can never know what other people are thinking, we can just speculate. Talk about these things. But if you're going to "shut people down" and get "offended" at the mere notion of a conversation, then, yes, that is EXACTLY what a cult is. That is precisely the point.

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby Pink Ball

When I ran out of world champions, I included the most successful non-World Champions in terms of the triple crown events. Along with Ding, Hunter was actually the first man to qualify going by that criteria as I recall, followed by Doug Mountjoy.

I don’t particularly agree that the Masters and current UK are the best tournaments aside from the worlds, but I accept that they’re the most valued by the players.

I made an exception for Eddie Charlton, who was a three-time WSC runner up and wouldn’t have had many triple crowns to go at.

I think Ali Carter was a little unlucky to miss out, but so be it. It’s a bit of fun, that’s all.

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby LDS

Iranu wrote:This is interesting. Who would you have included in the tournament ahead of Hunter?


How long have you got?

Perrie Mans - Masters winner, WSC runner up
Alan McManus - Masters winner, solid WSC record, 2 ranking event wins, innumerable finals and semi finals
Mark Allen - Masters winner, ok WSC record, plenty of ranking event wins
Steven Maguire - Solid in masters and WSC, lots of event wins.
Ali Carter - as mentioned already by others (sure, not an expected performer in this event, but then Pink didn't expect Hunter to be)
Tony Knowels - as mentioned in the other thread would have ranked world no.1 at one point under our current version of ranking
Steven Lee - another career cut tragically short
James Watana or Marco Fu - just so any asian-loyal forum members have some extra choice and interest, both have very credible careers
And this is all off the top of my head & before you back in time and suggest someone like Tom Dennis, a four time WSC runner-up. And the many other multiple runner-ups of history, such as Rex Williams et al.

And the pedantry here is the fact that whoever it is that would have been chosen, they are not expected to do well in the contest. Whoever is to be picked is not expected to be of Robertson's standard, a player who is also not expected to win or progress really well in the event.

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby Iranu

Ok well I can’t be fussed to go through and split the quotes because it’s a nightmare on mobile so I’ll respond in order:

By the end of the 2010 season when Selby was 27, he’d won two Masters and a Welsh Open and had been in a World final and another ranking final. What he went on to do is irrelevant but if anything speaks to the potential that Hunter had as he’d done more by the same age. I’m also not angry.

I have no idea why you’re bringing up Ken in response to that 2nd paragraph but for what it’s worth I’ve never heard anyone say Ken underperformed away from the Worlds. If you have, fine. But is he a journeyman? No. Is he a top player who never had a bad season? No. So why are you talking about him rather than responding to the queries you quoted? Yes he’s a better candidate for the tournament. He’s also in the tournament. And just to be clear: I think Robertson should have beaten Hunter so I’m not sure why you’re directing that three-way comparison at me apropos of nothing.

I’ve never heard of the cult of Higgins or the cult of Ronnie. To me the word cult is one with negative connotations. If that’s not how you meant it I apologise but given the rest of your posts that’s how it read. People in cults rarely refer to them as such.

Nothing I said assumed that people should react to death in the same way and if that’s what you think you don’t understand what I said. I never said anything about how people SHOULD behave when someone dies. In fact if you read back you’ll see that you brought up your complaints of the reactions in the first instance. I’m forcing nothing. At no point did I say that less strong reactions were inappropriate or wrong. YOU declared that the reactions that were shown were inappropriate, “hysterical”. But sure, I’m the oppressive one.

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby Iranu

LDS wrote:
Iranu wrote:This is interesting. Who would you have included in the tournament ahead of Hunter?


How long have you got?

Perrie Mans - Masters winner, WSC runner up
Alan McManus - Masters winner, solid WSC record, 2 ranking event wins, innumerable finals and semi finals
Mark Allen - Masters winner, ok WSC record, plenty of ranking event wins
Steven Maguire - Solid in masters and WSC, lots of event wins.
Ali Carter - as mentioned already by others (sure, not an expected performer in this event, but then Pink didn't expect Hunter to be)
Tony Knowels - as mentioned in the other thread would have ranked world no.1 at one point under our current version of ranking
Steven Lee - another career cut tragically short
James Watana or Marco Fu - just so any asian-loyal forum members have some extra choice and interest, both have very credible careers
And this is all off the top of my head & before you back in time and suggest someone like Tom Dennis, a four time WSC runner-up. And the many other multiple runner-ups of history, such as Rex Williams et al.

And the pedantry here is the fact that whoever it is that would have been chosen, they are not expected to do well in the contest. Whoever is to be picked is not expected to be of Robertson's standard, a player who is also not expected to win or progress really well in the event.

There are some good and bad calls in there. Not one of them should have beaten Robertson, though.

And Allen’s WSC record is terrible. One semi (11 years ago) and three quarters in 14 years - how is that decent?

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby LDS

Iranu wrote:
LDS wrote:And Allen’s WSC record is terrible. One semi (11 years ago) and three quarters in 14 years - how is that decent?


It's better than Hunter's.

But that's the point of what people are saying.

People keep saying "Hunter would have".

But this competition isn't about what ifs.

People are arguing that Hunter's 3 Masters wins and 2 Welsh Open wins merit him a place. That's fine, now that the rules are known, the logic can be seen.

The fact that he never got above rank 4 in the world puts him in the company of many other snooker players, oh look, including Mark Allen. Likewise, if you go by WSC results, he's in the company of even more players.

But we're going with triple crowns, so that's the route we're apparently going. Something that has a very strong recency bias in itself, let alone everything else.

So: what we know: Robertson 4 triple crown wins, Hunter 3. However, the result is Hunter winning because: speculation.

Hence Pink is upset.

Because the other rule of the event is that people are supposed to vote on what is, not what they think or what they wished would happen.

Which is obviously impossible, but you must understand the issue he's having.

And it's curious that everyone who's mentioned who they actually voted for is saying they voted for Robertson. No-one has yet come forward and said they voted for Hunter. Perhaps one of those people (probably lurkers who just wanted to annoy Pink? Oops, there's me speculating again), could come and have a bash at explaining how this result is meaningful to them?

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby LDS

Holden Chinaski wrote:I voted for Hunter. Just because I believe he would have been greater than Robbo. Sorry.


Cloud Strife wrote:I voted for Hunter based on what I felt he would have go on to achieve rather than what he actually did. Sue me.


In the same way people believe Elvis is still alive? Or because you're basing your thoughts on some specific reasoning that makes sense in a conversation with other snooker fans that they might like to hear and make sense of?

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby Iranu

LDS wrote:
Iranu wrote:
LDS wrote:And Allen’s WSC record is terrible. One semi (11 years ago) and three quarters in 14 years - how is that decent?


It's better than Hunter's.

But that's the point of what people are saying.

People keep saying "Hunter would have".

But this competition isn't about what ifs.

People are arguing that Hunter's 3 Masters wins and 2 Welsh Open wins merit him a place. That's fine, now that the rules are known, the logic can be seen.

The fact that he never got above rank 4 in the world puts him in the company of many other snooker players, oh look, including Mark Allen. Likewise, if you go by WSC results, he's in the company of even more players.

But we're going with triple crowns, so that's the route we're apparently going. Something that has a very strong recency bias in itself, let alone everything else.

So: what we know: Robertson 4 triple crown wins, Hunter 3. However, the result is Hunter winning because: speculation.

Hence Pink is upset.

Because the other rule of the event is that people are supposed to vote on what is, not what they think or what they wished would happen.

Which is obviously impossible, but you must understand the issue he's having.

And it's curious that everyone who's mentioned who they actually voted for is saying they voted for Robertson. No-one has yet come forward and said they voted for Hunter. Perhaps one of those people (probably lurkers who just wanted to annoy Pink? Oops, there's me speculating again), could come and have a bash at explaining how this result is meaningful to them?

I mean, I don’t think it really is better than Hunter’s but that depends how you define it. Yes on pure numbers he’s reached more latter stages but he’s had double the number of attempts in a weaker era. And besides, you said it was a decent record, you didn’t say it was a better record than Hunter’s. It’s not decent. It’s dreadful.

Not sure why you keep beating the dead horse of Hunter’s inclusion with me, we both agree he should have lost and now you understand the criteria it seems we agree he was a worthy inclusion even if there were others who would also have been worthy. I’m not sure why you’re saying, “You must understand the issue he’s having,” either. Because again: I AGREE WITH YOU. I’ve not once disputed Pink’s issue.

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby Holden Chinaski

LDS wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:I voted for Hunter. Just because I believe he would have been greater than Robbo. Sorry.


In the same way people believe Elvis is still alive? Or because you're basing your thoughts on some specific reasoning that makes sense in a conversation with other snooker fans that they might like to hear and make sense of?

In the same way that, if you would show me footage of Elvis Presley performing in his twenties, and then he'd die, I would say (based on the brilliance and promising talent of young Elvis) I think he probably would have been a brilliant record-breaking performer and better than Cliff Richard if he would have lived on.

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby Iranu

LDS wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:I voted for Hunter. Just because I believe he would have been greater than Robbo. Sorry.


Cloud Strife wrote:I voted for Hunter based on what I felt he would have go on to achieve rather than what he actually did. Sue me.


In the same way people believe Elvis is still alive? Or because you're basing your thoughts on some specific reasoning that makes sense in a conversation with other snooker fans that they might like to hear and make sense of?

More comparable to Buddy Holly than Elvis.

Or, you know, one of the several 27 Club members you mentioned.

I don’t agree with the choice but I feel like the logic is pretty easy to see.

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby Holden Chinaski

Iranu wrote:
LDS wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:I voted for Hunter. Just because I believe he would have been greater than Robbo. Sorry.


Cloud Strife wrote:I voted for Hunter based on what I felt he would have go on to achieve rather than what he actually did. Sue me.


In the same way people believe Elvis is still alive? Or because you're basing your thoughts on some specific reasoning that makes sense in a conversation with other snooker fans that they might like to hear and make sense of?

More comparable to Buddy Holly than Elvis.

Or, you know, one of the several 27 Club members you mentioned.

I don’t agree with the choice but I feel like the logic is pretty easy to see.

Yes, based on Buddy Holly's talent I would say he would have gone on to do more great things in music. I'm not sure about that, of course, but it is very likely.

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby LDS

mantorok wrote:
LDS wrote:We regularly refer to the cult of Higgins (Alex) or the cult of Ronnie fans and the like and no-one would comment.


Do we? I'm keen to know more.


Mantorok, snooker idol: Ronnie, takes immediate exception to the notion that Ronnie fans can be a bit cult-like, fails to notice the irony.

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby LDS

Cloud Strife wrote:I voted for Hunter based on what I felt he would have go on to achieve rather than what he actually did. Sue me.


How about this one:

What if Hunter got caught out in the snooker fixing scandals?

I mean, I don't think he would have. But it's a possible speculation. What if his family has a history of early loss of eyesight? Or indeed baldness (potentially affecting his self-image and confidence)? The options are truly endless.