Post a reply

Bearing in mind it will get to the point that

Postby shanew48 » 23 Dec 2020 Read

there will be a tournament almost every week of the year to go at for the next 10 - 15 years, is it likely that Trump will in fact end up with the most ranking event wins by the time he retires?

I'm guessing he will be chasing 45-50 by the time Ronnie retires?

It gives you an idea of how dominant Hendry was in his prime in that he racked up so many ranking event victory's, just think how many wins he would have ended up with if he had had 20 tournament's to go at every year in his prime!

Re: Bearing in mind it will get to the point that

Postby Dragonfly » 23 Dec 2020 Read

Trump will win about 100 ranking events. Will make him a lot of money, but ultimately he will be judged on his performance in the majors. At this time that record is still very poor.

Hendry on the other hand won plenty of less important events too, but his record in the majors was outstanding as well. At the moment can't compare the 2 players really.

Re: Bearing in mind it will get to the point that

Postby SnookerFan » 23 Dec 2020 Read

It's definitely possible that he'll set records.

We'll have to take into account the amount of tournaments now and how many majors he's won when comparing him with the all time greats.

Watch this space.

Re: Bearing in mind it will get to the point that

Postby lhpirnie » 23 Dec 2020 Read

SnookerFan wrote:It's definitely possible that he'll set records.

We'll have to take into account the amount of tournaments now and how many majors he's won when comparing him with the all time greats.

Watch this space.

The concept of 'ranking' tournaments is so flawed that I can see it breaking down anyway. I think it makes sense to categorise tournaments by their length and quality of the field. If snooker grows any bigger, there will be more tournaments than available slots in the calendar, and players will pick and choose.


Actually, despite my background, I'm not one to attempt historical comparisons. Nobody will beat Joe Davis' 15 World Championships, and players in 20-30 years' time should be objectively much stronger than the ones we have now.

Re: Bearing in mind it will get to the point that

Postby Dragonfly » 23 Dec 2020 Read

lhpirnie wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:It's definitely possible that he'll set records.

We'll have to take into account the amount of tournaments now and how many majors he's won when comparing him with the all time greats.

Watch this space.

The concept of 'ranking' tournaments is so flawed that I can see it breaking down anyway. I think it makes sense to categorise tournaments by their length and quality of the field. If snooker grows any bigger, there will be more tournaments than available slots in the calendar, and players will pick and choose.


Actually, despite my background, I'm not one to attempt historical comparisons. Nobody will beat Joe Davis' 15 World Championships, and players in 20-30 years' time should be objectively much stronger than the ones we have now.


While it's certainly true that nobody is going to match Joe Davis 15 world titles it's worth bearing in mind that some of those titles involved a tiny number of contestants.

Re: Bearing in mind it will get to the point that

Postby lhpirnie » 23 Dec 2020 Read

Dragonfly wrote:
lhpirnie wrote:...


While it's certainly true that nobody is going to match Joe Davis 15 world titles it's worth bearing in mind that some of those titles involved a tiny number of contestants.

Yes that's my point. Everyone defines their own criteria: 'the modern era', 'ranking tournaments', 'number of century breaks', 'triple crowns', etc. etc.


These GOAT debates make me think of the BBC's 'Greatest Briton in history' in 2000, where Princess Diana finished 3rd. There's always a massive bias towards the present-day heroes.

Re: Bearing in mind it will get to the point that

Postby shanew48 » 24 Dec 2020 Read

lhpirnie wrote:
Dragonfly wrote:
lhpirnie wrote:...


While it's certainly true that nobody is going to match Joe Davis 15 world titles it's worth bearing in mind that some of those titles involved a tiny number of contestants.

Yes that's my point. Everyone defines their own criteria: 'the modern era', 'ranking tournaments', 'number of century breaks', 'triple crowns', etc. etc.


These GOAT debates make me think of the BBC's 'Greatest Briton in history' in 2000, where Princess Diana finished 3rd. There's always a massive bias towards the present-day heroes.


But obviously Joe Davis wouldn't match up very well to the top players of today, I'm presuming he would be a top 32/64 player though for sure if he was playing now? or no?

Re: Bearing in mind it will get to the point that

Postby shanew48 » 24 Dec 2020 Read

With the greatest Britain thing, it's very subjective and impossible to quantify isn't it, at least with the snooker debates there is a record of who won what which usually gives a good idea of how good someone was.

Re: Bearing in mind it will get to the point that

Postby badtemperedcyril » 24 Dec 2020 Read

Dragonfly wrote:
lhpirnie wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:It's definitely possible that he'll set records.

We'll have to take into account the amount of tournaments now and how many majors he's won when comparing him with the all time greats.

Watch this space.

The concept of 'ranking' tournaments is so flawed that I can see it breaking down anyway. I think it makes sense to categorise tournaments by their length and quality of the field. If snooker grows any bigger, there will be more tournaments than available slots in the calendar, and players will pick and choose.


Actually, despite my background, I'm not one to attempt historical comparisons. Nobody will beat Joe Davis' 15 World Championships, and players in 20-30 years' time should be objectively much stronger than the ones we have now.


While it's certainly true that nobody is going to match Joe Davis 15 world titles it's worth bearing in mind that some of those titles involved a tiny number of contestants.


Snooker didn’t really get going until 1934 when professional billiards died. The reason for that is for another day but Joe didn’t really have any opposition of note until 1936. So he had to work hard for his titles thereafter. The other thing to consider is, Joe retired from World Championship play in 1946 but remained the best player for most of the next fifteen years and undoubtedly played to a higher level during that period than at anytime during his championship years.

Re: Bearing in mind it will get to the point that

Postby lhpirnie » 24 Dec 2020 Read

shanew48 wrote:
lhpirnie wrote:...


But obviously Joe Davis wouldn't match up very well to the top players of today, I'm presuming he would be a top 32/64 player though for sure if he was playing now? or no?

Yes, I agree completely. If Joe Davis were transported to today, he wouldn't win a tournament. But if Hendry, O'Sullivan or Trump were transported 50 years into the future, they wouldn't either. The standard rises, as it should. The great players of the future will build upon those of today. That's why it doesn't make a lot of sense to do historical comparisons based on standard.


But if the questions is: which snooker player had the biggest influence...? Well, let's face it, Joe Davis must come out pretty high.

Re: Bearing in mind it will get to the point that

Postby Holden Chinaski » 24 Dec 2020 Read

How many majors, especially World Championship titles, will he win is the real question. Judd has become a bit of a best of seven specialist, like he said himself recently. Considering the lack of competition, compared to the competition the class of '92 had, and considering the fact people are saying he's playing the highest standard of snooker ever, he should win roughly as many majors as Hendry and Ronnie have.


The ranking titles record is not really comparable, there are so many tournaments now. But we know which ones the top players really want to win: the triple crowns. Just look at the twitter profiles. These are the only tournaments the top players mention.

Re: Bearing in mind it will get to the point that

Postby Holden Chinaski » 24 Dec 2020 Read

SnookerFan wrote:https://www.sportinglife.com/snooker/news/trump-moving-towards-greatness/187733

"Trump really is a remarkable player and I know there has been a little bit of talk on social media about whether he can now be classed as a genuine great of the game. Well, he’s certainly moving into that category and while he probably needs to win a few more Triple Crown events, it doesn’t look like he will be taking his foot of the gas."

"Trump will be desperate for another big win given he currently holds none of the Triple Crown events. For the best player in the world, that won’t sit right."

:spot on:

Re: Bearing in mind it will get to the point that

Postby Dan-cat » 24 Dec 2020 Read

I once got told off at a tech consultancy job for starting my email subject lines like this. Like instead of actually putting a subject in the subject line, I would just begin the email in the subject line, much as ShaneyBaby has here. I thought it was cute.

I got way to much time on my hands right now

Re: Bearing in mind it will get to the point that

Postby Prop » 24 Dec 2020 Read

lhpirnie wrote:If Joe Davis were transported to today, he wouldn't win a tournament. But if Hendry, O'Sullivan or Trump were transported 50 years into the future, they wouldn't either.


Interesting theory. But will players in 50 years really be superior to peak Hendry, Ron and Trump to the same extent those players proved superior to Joe Davis? It’s a brave shout, for me.

We’ve heard the line “we’ll probably never see snooker like it again” (or words to that effect) in commentary of some of Ronnie’s genius-level snooker over the years. And, at the time, I would go along with that. Yes, we’ve seen Trump on a couple of occasions since play to an equally ridiculous level, 2019 WC final for example, but are we really going to see players come along in a generation or two that play to a standard clear leagues above that?

I’d argue that any raising of the bar is not going to follow the same curve as that between Joe Davis level and Ronnie, Trump, Hendry level.

And there’s just as much chance that ‘we’ll never see snooker like it again’.

Re: Bearing in mind it will get to the point that

Postby Holden Chinaski » 24 Dec 2020 Read

Prop wrote:
lhpirnie wrote:If Joe Davis were transported to today, he wouldn't win a tournament. But if Hendry, O'Sullivan or Trump were transported 50 years into the future, they wouldn't either.


Interesting theory. But will players in 50 years really be superior to peak Hendry, Ron and Trump to the same extent those players proved superior to Joe Davis? It’s a brave shout, for me.

We’ve heard the line “we’ll probably never see snooker like it again” (or words to that effect) in commentary of some of Ronnie’s genius-level snooker over the years. And, at the time, I would go along with that. Yes, we’ve seen Trump on a couple of occasions since play to an equally ridiculous level, 2019 WC final for example, but are we really going to see players come along in a generation or two that play to a standard clear leagues above that?

I’d argue that any raising of the bar is not going to follow the same curve as that between Joe Davis level and Ronnie, Trump, Hendry level.

And there’s just as much chance that ‘we’ll never see snooker like it again’.

I agree 100% :goodpost:

Re: Bearing in mind it will get to the point that

Postby lhpirnie » 24 Dec 2020 Read

Holden Chinaski wrote:
Prop wrote:
lhpirnie wrote:If Joe Davis were transported to today, he wouldn't win a tournament. But if Hendry, O'Sullivan or Trump were transported 50 years into the future, they wouldn't either.


Interesting theory. But will players in 50 years really be superior to peak Hendry, Ron and Trump to the same extent those players proved superior to Joe Davis? It’s a brave shout, for me.

We’ve heard the line “we’ll probably never see snooker like it again” (or words to that effect) in commentary of some of Ronnie’s genius-level snooker over the years. And, at the time, I would go along with that. Yes, we’ve seen Trump on a couple of occasions since play to an equally ridiculous level, 2019 WC final for example, but are we really going to see players come along in a generation or two that play to a standard clear leagues above that?

I’d argue that any raising of the bar is not going to follow the same curve as that between Joe Davis level and Ronnie, Trump, Hendry level.

And there’s just as much chance that ‘we’ll never see snooker like it again’.

I agree 100% :goodpost:

Perhaps, but if that's the case snooker really is in terminal decline. Would people of the future really be interested in a sport where the best days are in the past? That's the trajectory of billiards. If snooker goes the same way, then Hendry, O'Sullivan and Trump will become forgotten figures, like Lindrum, Newman and McConarchy. Ronnie's fastest 147 may be like Lindrum's billiards video.


One of the main reasons why I try to support young players is to ensure that doesn't happen. There is definitely room for a higher level to emerge - it's not as if Hendry, O'Sullivan and Trump are perfect players with no weaknesses.

I don't want to see snooker disappear and be replaced by 8-ball as the dominant cue-sport.

Re: Bearing in mind it will get to the point that

Postby Holden Chinaski » 24 Dec 2020 Read

I just think you can only play a game to a certain level. There are limits to what a human can do and I have a hard time imagining how you can play much better than peak Ronnie, for example. It would be fantastic to see someone play better than that, but I can't see it. In the days of Joe Davis the game was still new and developing. Nowadays, I think players like Ronnie might have pushed the limits already.

Re: Bearing in mind it will get to the point that

Postby badtemperedcyril » 24 Dec 2020 Read

Indeed, standards do not ALWAYS improve. Can you really say, the standard is better now than it was in, say, 2000? I would say it probably isn't. If you take the CO92 - they are nowhere near as consistent now as they were 15-20 years ago and yet they're still among the best, despite being of an age when they should be well past it. The only reason we're seeing so many century breaks now is because of the increase in the number of tournaments and even more significant, the conditions. The ultra fast tables and light balls are ideal for splitting the pack, which leads to single visit frame winning breaks. The faster cloths also make the corner pockets more generous, as the balls slide in off the jaws.

Billiards is pretty unique insofar that by far the best level of play was by Lindrum, Davis, Newman, McConachy and Smith, in the late 1920's, early 30's. Then the game pretty much died, in 1934 to be exact.
Post a reply