ATWSC Round of 16: Joe Davis v Mark Selby

Joe Davis v Mark Selby (Best of 25 frames)
Round of 16, Match One
Date: December 5
Venue: Camkin’s Hall, Birmingham, United Kingdom

Vote for which of the two players you think was greater. Vote honestly, and leave your bias out of it. Don’t vote for a player just because you like them, don’t vote against a player just because you dislike them.

Consider the table conditions to be whatever conditions would have the least impact on the result.

You can use your own personal criteria for measuring greatness once it’s free of any bias towards/against (delete as applicable) players you like/dislike (delete as applicable).

Comment for whoever you wish to vote for.

Robbo

Joe

davis

this like Rod Laver vs Andre Agassi or something like that.

You have the old legend and the greatest pre-modern era player vs a modern era All-Time Great who is a fantastic player but not quite in the Hendry/O'Sullivan category.

Thats why I have to say Davis.

I'm going to be controversial and say Selby

Joey-D

laver.

I've little doubt that if all things were equal, Selby would kick the head off his shoulders.

But I've adopted a policy of not voting on matches involving pre-modern era players, so I'll stay consistent.

I don't think you are being controversial Juddernaught, I vote Selby too

Davis

Pink Ball wrote:I've little doubt that if all things were equal, Selby would kick the head off his shoulders.

But I've adopted a policy of not voting on matches involving pre-modern era players, so I'll stay consistent.

I understand where you’re coming from PB. In this type of lineup I tend to adopt the view that progression heavily favours the modern day player if you’re making judgement on “standards”, such as that of modern break building against that of 70 years ago. The modern day guys have had the advantage of learning from their forefathers and each time, going up a level, as it were.
So to come from a different angle - would Selby beat Joe had he been born in 1901 and so without the benefit of knowledge of that progression?

badtemperedcyril wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:I've little doubt that if all things were equal, Selby would kick the head off his shoulders.

But I've adopted a policy of not voting on matches involving pre-modern era players, so I'll stay consistent.

I understand where you’re coming from PB. In this type of lineup I tend to adopt the view that progression heavily favours the modern day player if you’re making judgement on “standards”, such as that of modern break building against that of 70 years ago. The modern day guys have had the advantage of learning from their forefathers and each time, going up a level, as it were.
So to come from a different angle - would Selby beat Joe had he been born in 1901 and so without the benefit of knowledge of that progression?

No, because Joe would have banned him from playing.

Also, when I say progression, I mean the lot - technique, tactics, positional play, safety, knowing when to attack and when not... Joe (and his contemporaries) had to learn that for themselves, from scratch.

Pink Ball wrote:

badtemperedcyril wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:I've little doubt that if all things were equal, Selby would kick the head off his shoulders.

But I've adopted a policy of not voting on matches involving pre-modern era players, so I'll stay consistent.

I understand where you’re coming from PB. In this type of lineup I tend to adopt the view that progression heavily favours the modern day player if you’re making
judgement on “standards”, such as that of modern break building against that of 70 years ago. The modern day guys have had the advantage of learning from their forefathers and each time, going up a level, as it were.

So to come from a different angle - would Selby beat Joe had he been born in 1901 and so without the benefit of knowledge of that progression?

Know, because Joe would have banned him from playing.

Haha! Well, that’s another argument. It’s true, in the 50’s the professional game became a closed shop. It was small minded - they thought that because there wasn’t much money in the game that they’d be even less if they had to share it out between more players. Unfortunately the public got bored with seeing the same half dozen or so players. Bringing in fresh blood (especially exciting players like Pat Houlihan and Cliff Wilson) could have breathed new life into the game and created more income for them all. Also true that Joe (after 1946) would very seldom play anyone of “level” in order to protect his unbeaten record. Having said all that, Joe was still in a different class to anyone else of his generation.

Davis

Davis wins by 13 frames to 4.

Selby would bet him.

Dan-cat wrote:Selby would bet him.

But he'd lose the bet.

HappyCamper wrote:

Dan-cat wrote:Selby would bet him.

But he'd lose the bet.

No, he’d win the bet - because it implies he’d back Davis.