Post a reply

Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby shanew48 » 16 Feb 2021 Read

Ronnie is described as a "genius" in the context of playing snooker, bearing in mind some of the stuff Trump produces, could/should the same label be attached to him? and if not then why not?

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby Andre147 » 16 Feb 2021 Read

I'd say yes.

Well Ronnie is Ronnie, nothing more to add about him.

And Judd plays certain shots I've never seen players do before, and even when the frame is live.

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby Dragonfly » 16 Feb 2021 Read

In my opinion no I wouldn't use the word genius for Trump. He's a great player, capable of amazing shots. But O'Sullivan at his best elevated snooker to a higher art form, something really beautiful like a classic piece of music. It's no coincidence that Damien Hirst and Stephen Fry are O'Sullivan fans. The way he plays appeals to those of an artistic nature.

That's just my take on it. I think O'Sullivan is a once in a lifetime player. Watching him you just feel something special is happening. Like there are great bands and there is The Beatles. You are in the presence of greatness.

I don't feel that about Trump. Or players of similar ability and status like Robertson. O'Sullivan is unique.

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby Andre147 » 16 Feb 2021 Read

Dragonfly wrote:In my opinion no I wouldn't use the word genius for Trump. He's a great player, capable of amazing shots. But O'Sullivan at his best elevated snooker to a higher art form, something really beautiful like a classic piece of music. It's no coincidence that Damien Hirst and Stephen Fry are O'Sullivan fans. The way he plays appeals to those of an artistic nature.

That's just my take on it. I think O'Sullivan is a once in a lifetime player. Watching him you just feel something special is happening. Like there are great bands and there is The Beatles. You are in the presence of greatness.

I don't feel that about Trump. Or players of similar ability and status like Robertson. O'Sullivan is unique.


He definately is

And being a genius often means you're unpredictable, which ROS clearly is. No other player for me has been able to create such buzz.

I'd say Trump is a genius in certain shots he manages to pull off, but ROS is and always will be the true genius of Snooker.

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby vodkadiet1 » 17 Feb 2021 Read

I doubt any sportsman is a genius. Not as far as I've seen. I am not sure however good someone was at a sport they could be considered a genius. If anyone came close it was Jahangir Khan. He went unbeaten for five and a half years.

Now, Einstein was a genius....

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby D4P » 17 Feb 2021 Read

Ronnie's ambidexterity, speed and fluency, and mercurial nature all add to his "genius" persona. One also gets the impression that Ronnie doesn't have to work as hard as other players to perform at a high level and that he is the most "naturally gifted" player, which also add to his "genius"ness.

Ronnie makes the game look easy, whereas Judd looks like a player who is really good at a difficult game. (This is largely a function of Ronnie's superior position play and cueball control).

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby Iranu » 17 Feb 2021 Read

vodkadiet1 wrote:I doubt any sportsman is a genius. Not as far as I've seen. I am not sure however good someone was at a sport they could be considered a genius. If anyone came close it was Jahangir Khan. He went unbeaten for five and a half years.

Now, Einstein was a genius....

I think you’ve made this exact post before rofl

I half agree with you, in fairness. I think “genius” is within a sporting context and shouldn’t be conflated with true ‘academic’ genius.

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby vodkadiet1 » 17 Feb 2021 Read

Iranu wrote:
vodkadiet1 wrote:I doubt any sportsman is a genius. Not as far as I've seen. I am not sure however good someone was at a sport they could be considered a genius. If anyone came close it was Jahangir Khan. He went unbeaten for five and a half years.

Now, Einstein was a genius....

I think you’ve made this exact post before rofl

I half agree with you, in fairness. I think “genius” is within a sporting context and shouldn’t be conflated with true ‘academic’ genius.


You should have told me I had posted it before! I could have copied and pasted it!

I saw this programme about a guy from Britain who couldn't speak a single word of Icelandic. He went there for just one week and picked up the language so well in that short time that he went on an Icelandic talk show. Now, this is a genius!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GXjPEkDfek

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby Holden Chinaski » 17 Feb 2021 Read

vodkadiet1 wrote:I doubt any sportsman is a genius. Not as far as I've seen. I am not sure however good someone was at a sport they could be considered a genius. If anyone came close it was Jahangir Khan. He went unbeaten for five and a half years.

Now, Einstein was a genius....

We've tried to explain this to you before. The definition of a genius is: "an exceptionally intelligent person or one with exceptional skill in a particular area of activity. Exceptional intellectual or creative power or other natural ability."

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby Reg Varney » 17 Feb 2021 Read

vodkadiet1 wrote:I doubt any sportsman is a genius. Not as far as I've seen. I am not sure however good someone was at a sport they could be considered a genius. If anyone came close it was Jahangir Khan. He went unbeaten for five and a half years.

Now, Einstein was a genius....


Ed Moses went unbeaten for over nine years.

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby SnookerFan » 17 Feb 2021 Read

You could argue that Alex Higgins was a genius in his own way.

Ronnie is probably the best player there'll ever be, but Alex Higgins pioneered that attacking playing style at a time when nobody else did it. Players since him have played it better and it was popularised later on with players like Hendry. But Higgins was the one paving the way, when nobody else was playing like that.

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby sundaygirl » 17 Feb 2021 Read

vodkadiet1 wrote:I doubt any sportsman is a genius. Not as far as I've seen. I am not sure however good someone was at a sport they could be considered a genius. If anyone came close it was Jahangir Khan. He went unbeaten for five and a half years.

Now, Einstein was a genius....



I find the word brave similarly irksome in a sporting context

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby Iranu » 17 Feb 2021 Read

SnookerFan wrote:I am a genius at posting on Snooker Island.

Such a brave post.

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby Iranu » 17 Feb 2021 Read

SnookerFan wrote:
Iranu wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:I am a genius at posting on Snooker Island.

Such a brave post.


stfu Iranu.

So brave.

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby mantorok » 17 Feb 2021 Read

Dragonfly wrote:In my opinion no I wouldn't use the word genius for Trump. He's a great player, capable of amazing shots. But O'Sullivan at his best elevated snooker to a higher art form, something really beautiful like a classic piece of music. It's no coincidence that Damien Hirst and Stephen Fry are O'Sullivan fans. The way he plays appeals to those of an artistic nature.

That's just my take on it. I think O'Sullivan is a once in a lifetime player. Watching him you just feel something special is happening. Like there are great bands and there is The Beatles. You are in the presence of greatness.

I don't feel that about Trump. Or players of similar ability and status like Robertson. O'Sullivan is unique.


May as well shut this thread down, debate over.

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby vodkadiet1 » 17 Feb 2021 Read

sundaygirl wrote:
vodkadiet1 wrote:I doubt any sportsman is a genius. Not as far as I've seen. I am not sure however good someone was at a sport they could be considered a genius. If anyone came close it was Jahangir Khan. He went unbeaten for five and a half years.

Now, Einstein was a genius....



I find the word brave similarly irksome in a sporting context


Absolutely. The word 'brave' used to describe someone knocking balls around with a stick is offensive to people who actually are brave.

As for the term genius to describe any sportsman I am afraid I have higher standards. There is no one I have seen that could match that description. But isn't this all just semantics anyway? There seems to be a desire for commentators and pundits to exaggerate to the extreme these days as if to try and drag new viewers in. English language misuse.

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby Iranu » 17 Feb 2021 Read

vodkadiet1 wrote:
sundaygirl wrote:
vodkadiet1 wrote:I doubt any sportsman is a genius. Not as far as I've seen. I am not sure however good someone was at a sport they could be considered a genius. If anyone came close it was Jahangir Khan. He went unbeaten for five and a half years.

Now, Einstein was a genius....



I find the word brave similarly irksome in a sporting context


Absolutely. The word 'brave' used to describe someone knocking balls around with a stick is offensive to people who actually are brave.

As for the term genius to describe any sportsman I am afraid I have higher standards. There is no one I have seen that could match that description. But isn't this all just semantics anyway? There seems to be a desire for commentators and pundits to exaggerate to the extreme these days as if to try and drag new viewers in. English language misuse.

You don’t think that even making a match-winning clearance to secure prize money that would allow you to pay your bills would be brave?

Some of the language used in sport is hyperbolic, to be sure. But bravery can exist in sport.

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby SnookerFan » 17 Feb 2021 Read

Holden Chinaski wrote:Step into the ring for a fight with Mike Tyson, if you think there's no bravery in sport.


To be fair, he hasn't fought in more than fifteen years.

Unless you count that mess about with Roy Jones Jr.

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby Holden Chinaski » 17 Feb 2021 Read

SnookerFan wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:Step into the ring for a fight with Mike Tyson, if you think there's no bravery in sport.


To be fair, he hasn't fought in more than fifteen years.

Unless you count that mess about with Roy Jones Jr.

I still wouldn't want to step into the ring with him. He looked scary again against Roy Jones Jr.
Post a reply