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 mantorok

LDS wrote:
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.


I've just never heard it referred to as a "cult", I always thought cults were a smaller group of people, and I always felt Ronnie & Alex were a lot more "mainstream"?

I'm not taking exception, I've heard the term fan, fanboy etc. but never cult.

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby mantorok

Juddernaut88 wrote:Why can't we all just get along and be friends.


Tbf this conversation seems friendly enough to be me, just one person disagreeing with player-choice. No-one's getting nasty over it, LDS maybe taking it a little serious but other than that it's still a friendly exchange.

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby Iranu

LDS wrote:
Iranu wrote:Because again: I AGREE WITH YOU. I’ve not once disputed Pink’s issue.


It's definitely make-up-sex time :love:

Pass

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby McManusFan

Iranu wrote:
LDS wrote:
Iranu wrote:What a stupid post, LDS.


Explain...

Well for starters the 27 Club is also due to the sheer volume of well-known people who seem to die at that age. It’s partly artificial of course but it’s more than just being at their prime.

But onto Hunter:

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.

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?

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.

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.


Cracking post Iranu :hatoff:

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby LDS

McManusFan wrote:
Iranu wrote:
LDS wrote:
Iranu wrote:What a stupid post, LDS.


Explain...

Well for starters the 27 Club is also due to the sheer volume of well-known people who seem to die at that age. It’s partly artificial of course but it’s more than just being at their prime.

But onto Hunter:

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.

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?

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.

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.


Cracking post Iranu :hatoff:


It was a terrible post full of over-exaggerated misguided self-righteous indignation and misunderstanding expressed as a knee-jerk rant to things that hadn't been said and as such had no need to be said.

It implied the most horrendous things about me that were 10 times more insulting than anything I mentioned, its inherent hypocrisy oozes from every sentence.

But if you're a sucker for that kind of gameplay, who am I to argue with you. You are free to have your opinion. Remarkable how you have exactly the same opinion as someone else, that's not at all cultish...

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby Pink Ball

LDS wrote:...But then why did Pink Ball include him in this event if he doesn't himself rate him as someone worthy of beating someone like Robertson? Robertson is clearly going to be a mid to low table entrant in this event as a whole, so if Pink has issues with Hunter beating him, why is Hunter even included in the event in the first place? Could quite easily have replaced him with no-end of other snooker WSC runner-ups and all-round good players who never won the WSC.

So the buck passes back to Pink: if you are so surprised, what was your initial reason for including Hunter, who only has one single WSC SF to his name and not even any QFs? When your criteria for entry seemed to be WSC achievements...

I don't get this. It's a 32-entrant tournament in the mould of the FIFA World Cup. I picked 32 players, and I feel the 32 are worthy of conclusion.

Most of them shouldn't beat Robertson, whom I consider to be one of the top ten players of all time. That doesn't mean those players don't deserve to be in contention. Hunter is only one of about 20+ players who shouldn't beat Robertson, in my opinion. But he deserves to be among the 32. He was actually in ahead of about five or six other players.

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby Pink Ball

LDS wrote: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?

What? Ken Doherty is in this tournament. He qualified ahead of Hunter. What is your point?

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby Pink Ball

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.

Hunter had, arguably, a more successful career than all of those players went on to have, despite having his career pretty much end at 25/26.

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby Pink Ball

mantorok wrote:
Juddernaut88 wrote:Why can't we all just get along and be friends.


Tbf this conversation seems friendly enough to be me, just one person disagreeing with player-choice. No-one's getting nasty over it, LDS maybe taking it a little serious but other than that it's still a friendly exchange.

The idea of this tournament was that it would be a festival of snooker debate and, by that measure, this has been, by far, the match of the tournament.

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby LDS

McManusFan wrote:I think you need to reread that post it isn't half as aggressive as you seem to be making out.


I just did. It's absolutely full of false insinuation, over-exaggerated insults and horrendous misunderstanding that biases itself entirely in the camp of assuming everyone should be expected to have the exact same reaction to his life and death, and that expectation is entirely governed by himself.

The sheer irony of concluding that I supposedly "THINK IT'S ALL ABOUT ME" when the key factor here is that the death of others very rarely is even remotely connected to me and that forcing other people into a grief structure is entirely "ALL ABOUT YOU" and is nothing whatsoever to do with the innocent bystanders thinking it's all about them.

Incredulous in the extreme.

It's well known that some people have difficulty with grief. There's no denying that at all. The insinuation that those who don't have a problem with grief should pretend to have grief because of those people is an awful proposition. It's not someone's fault if they don't feel grief, it's not a crime not to feel grief for someone, and yet that is the phraseology he uses, to imply it's 'insane' to think some people wont have felt grief upon someone's death. That people who don't feel grief for others are 'horrendous'.

When, in a normal situation, grief only effects "loved ones". A lot of people obviously loved the guy. No debate there and I've never said otherwise. But to imply everyone has to act as if they were a loved one is a hideous proposition.

And, yes, obviously, one does not tend to end up in debates like this in the week or two after someone's death, that's just a different thing called common courtesy and respect. But when looking back at an event 13 years ago with the benefit of hindsight and the detachment of objectivity, I feel sure it's not offensive to suggest that there could have been a over-reaction to his death as a 'normal' talking point. That 'hysteria' shouldn't be a factor 13 years later.

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby LDS

Pink Ball wrote:The idea of this tournament was that it would be a festival of snooker debate and, by that measure, this has been, by far, the match of the tournament.


There's been lots of posts, but precious little debate.

You just repeat the phrase "Robertson should have beaten Hunter" without giving any real reasons nor responding to other people's reasons.

The people who voted for Hunter just repeat the phrase "Hunter would have been better than Robertson" without giving any real reason nor responding to other people's reasons.

Iranu jumped on me for no real reason because he sensed an opportunity to troll someone & the trolling has continued, but I wouldn't call it a snooker debate.

If all you want is posts, lots of posts, then just get snoookerfan interested in your curious spamming programme...?

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby McManusFan

LDS wrote:
McManusFan wrote:I think you need to reread that post it isn't half as aggressive as you seem to be making out.


I just did. It's absolutely full of false insinuation, over-exaggerated insults and horrendous misunderstanding that biases itself entirely in the camp of assuming everyone should be expected to have the exact same reaction to his life and death, and that expectation is entirely governed by himself.

The sheer irony of concluding that I supposedly "THINK IT'S ALL ABOUT ME" when the key factor here is that the death of others very rarely is even remotely connected to me and that forcing other people into a grief structure is entirely "ALL ABOUT YOU" and is nothing whatsoever to do with the innocent bystanders thinking it's all about them.

Incredulous in the extreme.

It's well known that some people have difficulty with grief. There's no denying that at all. The insinuation that those who don't have a problem with grief should pretend to have grief because of those people is an awful proposition. It's not someone's fault if they don't feel grief, it's not a crime not to feel grief for someone, and yet that is the phraseology he uses, to imply it's 'insane' to think some people wont have felt grief upon someone's death. That people who don't feel grief for others are 'horrendous'.

When, in a normal situation, grief only effects "loved ones". A lot of people obviously loved the guy. No debate there and I've never said otherwise. But to imply everyone has to act as if they were a loved one is a hideous proposition.

And, yes, obviously, one does not tend to end up in debates like this in the week or two after someone's death, that's just a different thing called common courtesy and respect. But when looking back at an event 13 years ago with the benefit of hindsight and the detachment of objectivity, I feel sure it's not offensive to suggest that there could have been a over-reaction to his death as a 'normal' talking point. That 'hysteria' shouldn't be a factor 13 years later.


Oh pull the other one. That's a complete strawman argument and you know it. At one point he explicitly agrees with you about people's reaction to the deaths of those they don't really know, and at no point is he telling you how you should think or feel in those circumstances. On the other hand you are perfectly happy to decry people who are showing grief as 'hysterical' or in a 'deranged cult'.

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby LDS

McManusFan wrote:Oh pull the other one. That's a complete strawman argument and you know it. At one point he explicitly agrees with you about people's reaction to the deaths of those they don't really know, and at no point is he telling you how you should think or feel in those circumstances. On the other hand you are perfectly happy to decry people who are showing grief as 'hysterical' or in a 'deranged cult'.


Yes, remarkable how someone who is agreement with me about my basic point then has to call me insane, suggest my views are horrendous and that my lack of interest in the deaths of people I barely know are somehow "ALL ABOUT ME" situations.

But, sure, feel free to cherry pick your angle.

And, once again, you fall into the wonderful troll party-time trick of claiming I said one thing when I said no such thing. At no point have I said "people who display grief are hysterical", that is so disingenuous as to be practically slanderous. And slander is indeed a criminal offence. Though, obviously, I don't mean that in "I'm phoning the cops" sense, but just in a "hey, wow, check out this guy's moral hypocrisy" sense.

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby Pink Ball

I've explained several times why I think Robertson should have won.

We know that Neil Robertson has had an exceptionally successful career. Paul Hunter might have gone on to have an exceptionally successful career, and up to the age of 25 had done really well. That he qualified -- comfortably enough -- despite having died at 27 speaks very highly of the potential he had.

But we don't know what he would have become. Nobody knows, and that's very sad, but it's the reality. It's too big a stretch for me to assume that he would have won nearly 20 ranking titles, as Robertson has done. We have to deal with what we know. Hunter did plenty to qualify for this tournament, but I think people have lost the run of themselves, personally, in voting for him over one of the ten best players of all time. I don't see how anyone can make that assumption of him. He was very, very good, but I wouldn't say he looked incredible at that stage.

That's all.

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby McManusFan

LDS wrote:That 'hysteria' shouldn't be a factor 13 years later.


It's right there! Maybe I'm reading that in a particularly unsympathetic way, but what do you expect when you decide to jump down someone's throat just for agreeing with something.
Last edited by McManusFan on 25 Nov 2020, edited 1 time in total.

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby LDS

McManusFan wrote:It's right there! Maybe I'm reading that in a particularly unsympathetic way, but what do you expect when you decide to jump down someone's throat just for agreeing with something.


Yeah, you're becoming a bit tedious now aren't you. He really didn't "Just agree with me" did he. That's not at all disingenuous of you at all is it.

You're not reading it unsympathetically, you're not reading it at all. The the two things I have referred to as hysterical are

1. The reaction at the time to his death. Now, this could well be justified, he was clearly a well loved person, but that doesn't mean the it wasn't hysterical, it just means it was understandable hysteria. But still hysteria.

2. Iranu's reaction to my post was hysterical in it's approach to the topic, a knee-jerk tirade of insults, even though, as you yourself point out, he really, deep down, wanted to agree with me, but, for whatever reason, felt the need to surround that agreement with hysterical 'aggression', as if he sensed Hunter's mother was reading the post and preparing to run a twitter campaign against him if he didn't or something.

And you can keep repeating all the nonsense you like, you can +1 all the horse manure posts you like, you are sure free to do that, but, really, all you seem to want to do is slander the crap out of me, you don't actually want to discuss the topic at all.

Once again, just shooting off on the moral outrage line, more concerned about making me look like an ass than the actual topic at hand, and by doing so, just making yourself into even more of an ass than you're trying to pretend I am.

"How dare you say the reaction to Hunter's death was a bit of a hysterical overreaction" says the first guy, while agreeing that it was a hysterical overreaction.

"How dare you say that the guy's response to your post was a hysterical overreaction" says the second guy, while not even bothering to say whether they thought the reaction to Hunter's death was a hysterical overreaction.

How about we get a third guy in to complain about how my reaction to you is hostile because all you did was say that the first guy agreed with me, that'd be great, pure trolling inception of the highest order...
Last edited by LDS on 25 Nov 2020, edited 1 time in total.

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby chengdufan

I voted Robertson. I think it's a close call though and it's good to see a match that doesn't have a massively one-sided result.
Robertson's WC win gives him a slight edge for me in terms of the greatness of the two players.

In terms of who would win if tgey really played? Their end of career head to head would likely be close and could go either way depending on when and where they met.

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby LDS

HappyCamper wrote:slander is not criminal, it's a civil matter. (at least in the uk).


Indeed. The joys of the legal system, where non-criminals have to go to court and get fined huge sums of money and have to pay up or go to jail, because non-payment is a criminal offence. Very Kafkaesque.

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby Iranu

I never called you insane. I said referring to fans of Hunter as a Cult was insane. At no point was I talking about your views on grief, either, considering I actually said I agreed with you on some aspects of it. So we’ll take your misappropriation of my comment, assume it was a genuine error on your part and leave it there, shall we?


You also literally said hysterical. You even said me suggesting it wasn’t hysterical was “as much speculation as me suggesting is [sic] was.”

My point about it not being about you was that perhaps your personal opinion of the tributes wasn’t the point. Perhaps your speculation that the players giving tributes were being disingenuous (and yes, I do think this is a horrendous thing to suggest. If EVERY SINGLE TOUR PLAYER had given a glowing tribute you might have a point but I’m fairly sure that wasn’t the case. If you think it’s not horrendous that’s your prerogative.) isn’t the point. These tributes are not being given for your benefit. I’m sure some if not all of that kid’s friends and family were glad to know he stayed in the school’s thoughts, for example. I doubt they were thinking about LDS in the other class not really caring. Likewise, I’m sure the BBC weren’t considering those who weren’t really bothered by Hunters death when airing the tributes.

To clarify, I often don’t understand the level of grief over the deaths of famous people, for example. But invariably I’m not a big fan of those famous people (and in some cases think they were not very good people). So I have sympathy with your views on repetitive tributes etc. It’s the fact that you question their legitimacy and genuineness that bothers me more than anything.


   

cron