Mark Williams has John Higgins as the 2nd best player ever

SnookerFan wrote:Why are we ignoring Bagley?

We're talking about the second best player ev(er)

chengdufan wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:Why are we ignoring Bagley?

We're talking about the second best player ev(er)

Right, right, right.

sas6789 wrote:

TheRocket wrote:

Johnny Bravo wrote:

TheRocket wrote:Well Williams clearly wrong here. As good as Higgins is, he doesnt have the titles to back it up what MJW says.

World,UK,Masters, Hendry is ahead. And in fact miles ahead. Higgins is in a position where he even Selby could surpass his TC haul soon.

He doen't have to have the titles. Both at their best, Higgins obliterates Hendry. No matter how great a breakbuilder you are, when you don't get a chance to score, you can't win.

Who cares if Higgins has the higher peak level?

Hendry has won 3 more Worlds, 2 more UKs,4 more Masters, 5 more ranking titles. Higgins would swap his career for Hendrys if he could.

Higgins doesn't have the higher peak level. Higgins has never played as well as Hendry did in the 93 world final.

I dont really think that Higgins has the higher peak level. Thats JB's opinion.

My point is peak level count for nothing if you dont have enough titles to back up your greatness. So even if Higgins had the higher peak level he'd be behind Hendry.

Hendry has 7 World titles and Higgins has 4.

End of conversation.

If JB thinks peak Higgins "obliterates" peak Hendry then his opinion doesn't count for much.

badtemperedcyril wrote:If JB thinks peak Higgins "obliterates" peak Hendry then his opinion doesn't count for much.

We all figure that out eventually.

TheRocket wrote:

Johnny Bravo wrote:

TheRocket wrote:Well Williams clearly wrong here. As good as Higgins is, he doesnt have the titles to back it up what MJW says.

World,UK,Masters, Hendry is ahead. And in fact miles ahead. Higgins is in a position where he even Selby could surpass his TC haul soon.

He doen't have to have the titles. Both at their best, Higgins obliterates Hendry. No matter how great a breakbuilder you are, when you don't get a chance to score, you can't win.

Who cares if Higgins has the higher peak level?

Hendry has won 3 more Worlds, 2 more UKs,4 more Masters, 5 more ranking titles. Higgins would swap his career for Hendrys if he could.

Yes, Hendry is greater, nobody's denying that.
I simply agreed with what Willo said, that Higgins is better.

badtemperedcyril wrote:If JB thinks peak Higgins "obliterates" peak Hendry then his opinion doesn't count for much.

I like to use fancy words and I exaggerate a bit.
But if we pit them against each other, both at their best, 100 frames, I see Higgins winning 60 to 40, perhaps even better. Hendry won't get enough chances to score.

Johnny Bravo wrote:

badtemperedcyril wrote:If JB thinks peak Higgins "obliterates" peak Hendry then his opinion doesn't count for much.

I like to use fancy words and I exaggerate a bit.
But if we pit them against each other, both at their best, 100 frames, I see Higgins winning 60 to 40, perhaps even better. Hendry won't get enough chances to score.

Higgins doesn’t reach his peak though against a peak Hendry. Hendry had such amazing powers of concentration and and iron will to win, there’s no way Higgins would be able to shut him out for sustained periods. Hendry was a absolute colossus.

“Peak game” is irrelevant.

Almost every player on tour can make a century every frame at their peak.

It’s a stupid metric to use.

Iranu wrote:“Peak game” is irrelevant.

Almost every player on tour can make a century every frame at their peak.

It’s a stupid metric to use.

We’re not talking about a single frame though...

Being at the peak of ones game is a perfectly appropriate metric to describe Hendry’s form in the 1993 World Championship, for instance. That was the single most dominant performance of his career - nobody could’ve lived with him in that tournament.

badtemperedcyril wrote:

Iranu wrote:“Peak game” is irrelevant.

Almost every player on tour can make a century every frame at their peak.

It’s a stupid metric to use.

We’re not talking about a single frame though...

Being at the peak of ones game is a perfectly appropriate metric to describe Hendry’s form in the 1993 World Championship, for instance. That was the single most dominant performance of his career - nobody could’ve lived with him in that tournament.

I’m not disagreeing with you.

My point is whether or not Higgins “peak game” is better than Hendry’s is utterly irrelevant. If both players were at their peak, the only true deciding factor would be whether or not they have a long red on from the break-off.

I think there’s an argument to be made that Higgins is the better player, though I don’t agree with it. His peak is irrelevant to that.

I’d wager that only very, very rarely have we ever seen a player produce their true absolute peak in a match situation.

Iranu wrote:

badtemperedcyril wrote:

Iranu wrote:“Peak game” is irrelevant.

Almost every player on tour can make a century every frame at their peak.

It’s a stupid metric to use.

We’re not talking about a single frame though...

Being at the peak of ones game is a perfectly appropriate metric to describe Hendry’s form in the 1993 World Championship, for instance. That was the single most dominant performance of his career - nobody could’ve lived with him in that tournament.

I’m not disagreeing with you.

My point is whether or not Higgins “peak game” is better than Hendry’s is utterly irrelevant. If both players were at their peak, the only true deciding factor would be whether or not they have a long red on from the break-off.

I think there’s an argument to be made that Higgins is the better player, though I don’t agree with it. His peak is irrelevant to that.

I’d wager that only very, very rarely have we ever seen a player produce their true absolute peak in a match situation.

I think we agree that "peak" can be used to describe a performance but it is virtually impossible for both players to hit that level simultaneously. Quite simply, only one player can pot the balls - the other guy has to sit and wait for his turn.

There's no doubt Hendry is greater. He's a true snooker legend.

As mentioned, who is the better player is debatable.
When having this debate for most pairings, you'd look at the 3-5 years they were at their best. For Hendry and Higgins, as they were or have been at or around the top for their entire careers, we can compare them over their whole career.

It's close, but Higgins edges it for me as being the better player.

chengdufan wrote:There's no doubt Hendry is greater. He's a true snooker legend.

As mentioned, who is the better player is debatable.
When having this debate for most pairings, you'd look at the 3-5 years they were at their best. For Hendry and Higgins, as they were or have been at or around the top for their entire careers, we can compare them over their whole career.

It's close, but Higgins edges it for me as being the better player.

Naaaa Hendry is the better player. Hendry was past it in 2012 yet still hammered Higgins 13-4 in the World championship last 16. Both players were poor but Higgins was defending champion.
Higgins also leant a lot off Hendry when they used to practise regularly in the 90s.

Juddernaut88 wrote:

chengdufan wrote:There's no doubt Hendry is greater. He's a true snooker legend.

As mentioned, who is the better player is debatable.
When having this debate for most pairings, you'd look at the 3-5 years they were at their best. For Hendry and Higgins, as they were or have been at or around the top for their entire careers, we can compare them over their whole career.

It's close, but Higgins edges it for me as being the better player.

Naaaa Hendry is the better player. Hendry was past it in 2012 yet still hammered Higgins 13-4 in the World championship last 16. Both players were poor but Higgins was defending champion.
Higgins also leant a lot off Hendry when they used to practise regularly in the 90s.

Higgins was bucking dreadful in that 2012 match.

You might as well say Rory McLeod’s a better player than Judd Trump.

badtemperedcyril wrote:

Iranu wrote:“Peak game” is irrelevant.

Almost every player on tour can make a century every frame at their peak.

It’s a stupid metric to use.

We’re not talking about a single frame though...

Being at the peak of ones game is a perfectly appropriate metric to describe Hendry’s form in the 1993 World Championship, for instance. That was the single most dominant performance of his career - nobody could’ve lived with him in that tournament.

Peak ROS, peak Trump and peak Higgins would have beat him.

Peak off. You're boring now.

Everything that goes in to Mark Williams' mouth is garbage and everything that comes out of his mouth is garbage.

vodkadiet1 wrote:Everything that goes in to Mark Williams' mouth is garbage and everything that comes out of his mouth is garbage.

Mark killed and ate a chicken today

Johnny Bravo wrote:

badtemperedcyril wrote:

Iranu wrote:“Peak game” is irrelevant.

Almost every player on tour can make a century every frame at their peak.

It’s a stupid metric to use.

We’re not talking about a single frame though...

Being at the peak of ones game is a perfectly appropriate metric to describe Hendry’s form in the 1993 World Championship, for instance. That was the single most dominant performance of his career - nobody could’ve lived with him in that tournament.

Peak ROS, peak Trump and peak Higgins would have beat him.

Have you been on the wacky baccy?

Hendry has never played a Peak Trump granted but he has played and beaten a Peak Ronnie and Higgins many times as have they beaten a Peak Hendry that what happens when greatness goes against each other some you win and some you dont.

I think its obvious that Peak Hendry and Peak Ronnie played about the same level. Even when I look at their peak level performances they scored about the same number of 50+ breaks and won similar number of frames in one visit.

And now their career stats and success is almost identical as well. Ronnie won 37 rankers, lost 20 finals, Hendry won 36 rankers, lost 20 finals. Hendry won 7 Worlds, Ronnie 6. Ronnie won 7 Masters, Hendry 6. Ronnie 2 ahead at the UK.

If you look at finals Hendry definitely should have won more UK's (lost 5 finals) and Ronnie should have won more Masters (lost 6 finals).

Difference is, Hendry won his titles over a 10 year period by dominating whereas Ronnie showed incredible longevity. So similar success but in a different way.

Williams and Hendry are big buddies, and mark loves a wind up,just think it's banter.

I don't like Hendry but peak Hendry is no joke, come on now

Imo ROS has played the highest level of snooker but if they played 5 matches I'd go 3-2 to ROS

Judd is another example of peak level of snooker that Hendry respects a lot, infact Hendry said ROS and Judd are the only 2 players that he respects the moment in terms of the things they've done on the snooker table

More interesting debate is who had the higher peak between Williams and Selby, might open a thread on it

buck it I'm opening it

Acé wrote:More interesting debate is who had the higher peak between Williams and Selby, might open a thread on it

That would be an interesting question.

Iranu wrote:

Acé wrote:More interesting debate is who had the higher peak between Williams and Selby, might open a thread on it

That would be an interesting question.

I've opened it, with a poll too

this one's gonna be tough

TheRocket wrote:I think its obvious that Peak Hendry and Peak Ronnie played about the same level. Even when I look at their peak level performances they scored about the same number of 50+ breaks and won similar number of frames in one visit.

And now their career stats and success is almost identical as well. Ronnie won 37 rankers, lost 20 finals, Hendry won 36 rankers, lost 20 finals. Hendry won 7 Worlds, Ronnie 6. Ronnie won 7 Masters, Hendry 6. Ronnie 2 ahead at the UK.

If you look at finals Hendry definitely should have won more UK's (lost 5 finals) and Ronnie should have won more Masters (lost 6 finals).

Difference is, Hendry won his titles over a 10 year period by dominating whereas Ronnie showed incredible longevity. So similar success but in a different way.

Yet some people don't seem to understand this, or just don't want to. Both are impressive, but in a different way as you well said.

.