Post a reply

Who do you rate as the greater player?

Stephen Hendry
4
13%
Ronnie O'Sullivan
27
87%
 
Total votes : 31

Re: Who do you rate as the greater player?

Postby mick745

TheRocket wrote:
Iranu wrote:
TheRocket wrote:He turned pro in 92 but reached his true peak only from the 00's on. He also had Steve Davis and Hendry as a benchmark. And another thing that worked in his advantage is that he had an incredible main rival with Higgins who pushed him to the limit. And he obviously played Hendry a lot of times as well in the first half of his career.

I think thats what the new guy who is supposed to raise the bar even higher needs as well. He will have Ronnie as his benchmark but he needs 2-3 rivals who also push him to the limit.

Yeah but I’m saying snooker is still pretty young as an open sport and even younger as an international sport. So there’s a lot of potential still to be reached.

I think it’s not just likely but inevitable. It happens all the time in sport and people always think that x player is the pinnacle - until someone new comes along. We’ve already seen it happen with snooker
.


Yes but there are always limits you'd think. As a human. You will reach a stage eventually where it doesnt get better unless you're a machine. Especially when it comes to a sport like Snooker where its about the finest of margins.

I'm not saying we're there yet btw. We simply dont know and future will tell but if there will be someone in the future who is better than the current level of toppros including Ronnie that guy needs to be a very special talent.


We look back 100 years ago and think snooker was played to a primitive standard back then (with the benefit of our hindsight). In 100 years, with another 100 years of himan experience and knowledge of playing the game the fans of the future may look back and think snooker of our times was a primitive standard (with the benefit of their hindsight).

As others have said it is only just scratching the surface of global reach. Wait until you see the standard of the world final in 2065 between that Argentinian and Croatian pair.

Re: Who do you rate as the greater player?

Postby Holden Chinaski

Dan-cat wrote:
badtemperedcyril wrote:"Trailing 16-14, taking indiscriminate swipes when escaping from snookers and playing as though it was an exhibition"

Senior Eurosport Commentator and Snooker Scene Chief Reporter


Just not true.

Ronnie spoke about it afterwards saying ‘I could have played just to roll up, but this would have allowed Selby to put me in another possibly worse snooker.’ The hit and hope was strategy, and I’ve since seen other players do it more often.

Indeed.

Re: Who do you rate as the greater player?

Postby TheRocket

mick745 wrote:
We look back 100 years ago and think snooker was played to a primitive standard back then (with the benefit of our hindsight). In 100 years, with another 100 years of himan experience and knowledge of playing the game the fans of the future may look back and think snooker of our times was a primitive standard (with the benefit of their hindsight).

As others have said it is only just scratching the surface of global reach. Wait until you see the standard of the world final in 2065 between that Argentinian and Croatian pair.


The World final in 2065 might have a very high standard but will all due respect, I highly doubt that Snooker will ever be a big deal in Argentina or Croatia. It will never be a big deal globally like other sports are.

Re: Who do you rate as the greater player?

Postby Andre147

Holden Chinaski wrote:
Dan-cat wrote:
badtemperedcyril wrote:"Trailing 16-14, taking indiscriminate swipes when escaping from snookers and playing as though it was an exhibition"

Senior Eurosport Commentator and Snooker Scene Chief Reporter


Just not true.

Ronnie spoke about it afterwards saying ‘I could have played just to roll up, but this would have allowed Selby to put me in another possibly worse snooker.’ The hit and hope was strategy, and I’ve since seen other players do it more often.

Indeed.


Maguire does the hit and hope more than anyone else, MJW too did it many times in this world champs and nobody spoke about it or very little it. It seems when it comes to Ronnie, if he does it it's because he's not interested or doesn't care lol

Re: Who do you rate as the greater player?

Postby Johnny Bravo

lhpirnie wrote:For me, I do think Ronnie has raised the bar, i.e. a stronger player than his predecessors. I hope I live long enough to see someone come along and raise the bar still higher, as will surely happen sometime.

As TR said, there are limits to what we humans can achieve. :shrug:

For example, nobody is gonna run the 100m in 9 seconds, that is not physically possible. Same goes for snooker, I very much doubt there will be someone who can play this game to a higher level than Ronnie and Judd.
And if there will be, the margin by which the said player will exceed them is gonna be very slim.

Re: Who do you rate as the greater player?

Postby TheRocket

Johnny Bravo wrote:
lhpirnie wrote:For me, I do think Ronnie has raised the bar, i.e. a stronger player than his predecessors. I hope I live long enough to see someone come along and raise the bar still higher, as will surely happen sometime.

As TR said, there are limits to what we humans can achieve. :shrug:

For example, nobody is gonna run the 100m in 9 seconds, that is not physically possible. Same goes for snooker, I very much doubt there will be someone who can play this game to a higher level than Ronnie and Judd.
And if there will be, the margin by which the said player will exceed them is gonna be very slim.


pretty much this. If there ever will be another player who will surpass Ronnies or peak Judds level for that matter it will be by a very small margin and even that will be a very huge challenge.

Beyond that would be machine level.

Re: Who do you rate as the greater player?

Postby Johnny Bravo

TheRocket wrote:The World final in 2065 might have a very high standard but will all due respect, I highly doubt that Snooker will ever be a big deal in Argentina or Croatia. It will never be a big deal globally like other sports are.

Correct. The main reason snooker hasn't done as well globally is cause it's too bucking hard compared to other cue sports.
Pool is the easiest one and you can see that by looking at how spread/played it is at a global level.

Most clubs/sports venues that have pool/snooker tables want to make money of them. Snooker is more expensive and harder, thus less people/casuals are interested in playing it. Same goes for Chinese 8 ball or Russian pyramid.
Therefore the owners of those said clubs/sports arenas are not gonna keep a lot of snooker tables around or they are gonna ditch them all together. Therefore the sport won't grow.

Re: Who do you rate as the greater player?

Postby Johnny Bravo

TheRocket wrote:
Johnny Bravo wrote:
lhpirnie wrote:For me, I do think Ronnie has raised the bar, i.e. a stronger player than his predecessors. I hope I live long enough to see someone come along and raise the bar still higher, as will surely happen sometime.

As TR said, there are limits to what we humans can achieve. :shrug:

For example, nobody is gonna run the 100m in 9 seconds, that is not physically possible. Same goes for snooker, I very much doubt there will be someone who can play this game to a higher level than Ronnie and Judd.
And if there will be, the margin by which the said player will exceed them is gonna be very slim.


pretty much this. If there ever will be another player who will surpass Ronnies or peak Judds level for that matter it will be by a very small margin and even that will be a very huge challenge.

Beyond that would be machine level.

Yes.
Just take a long shot on a snooker table as an example. The table is so big and the balls are tiny, there's a reason those shots are so hard, even for pros. The slightest deviation on the white's path makes a world of difference whether the pot attempt is successful or not.
Another example would be a pot attempt from the baulk line at a red that's located slightly off the cushion (a quarter of an inch) near the middle pocket. Try pocketing that in one of the pockets in the black area. It is so bucking difficult that not even the best long potters in history can make more than 4 or 5 out of 10. And I'm being generous with this number. That's cause figuring out the potting angle (which is slightly parallel to the cushion and at the same time at a vey tiny angle) is so hard to gauge, and even more so to execute/cue. It simply surpasses human limits, the margins for error are just too damn small. :-( :shrug:

Re: Who do you rate as the greater player?

Postby Andre147

I dont agree with that. In 50 or 100 years time someone could easily knock 18 century breaks in a Best of 35 match.

Who would have thought the level of play would be where it is today 50 years ago?

Re: Who do you rate as the greater player?

Postby Iranu

Andre147 wrote:I dont agree with that. In 50 or 100 years time someone could easily knock 18 century breaks in a Best of 35 match.

Who would have thought the level of play would be where it is today 50 years ago?

:goodpost:

We really have no idea what the human limit is when it comes to snooker.

Re: Who do you rate as the greater player?

Postby McManusFan

Andre147 wrote:I dont agree with that. In 50 or 100 years time someone could easily knock 18 century breaks in a Best of 35 match.

Who would have thought the level of play would be where it is today 50 years ago?


If the standard ever got that high, they'd have to make the game harder!

Re: Who do you rate as the greater player?

Postby Andre147

McManusFan wrote:
Andre147 wrote:I dont agree with that. In 50 or 100 years time someone could easily knock 18 century breaks in a Best of 35 match.

Who would have thought the level of play would be where it is today 50 years ago?


If the standard ever got that high, they'd have to make the game harder!


That's true.

I love great breakbuilding, but watching someone knock in 18 century breaks in a match over that length would be very boring.

Re: Who do you rate as the greater player?

Postby KrazeeEyezKilla

It's possible for the standard to go up in the future although that could be improved tactical or safety play rather than break building. A few small changes here and there could leave Snooker looking very different in 20-30 years time. It probably wouldn't be one player that would do this.

The problem is whether the circumstances are there for it to happen. The Class of 92 were the product of an era when Snooker was massive and the players treated like rock stars. There were Snooker halls everywhere and the professional game was close to home. That level of popularity isn't going to happen again and the game is less accessible now with fewer places to play. One off players from non traditional countries are extremely unlikely to get to that level. Snooker has been big in Asia since the 80's and it still hasn't produced a World Champion.

Re: Who do you rate as the greater player?

Postby Holden Chinaski

What makes Ronnie the greatest is not only his technique but also his bottle. He is capable of staying cool under incredible pressure. There have been times when this was not the case, as we all know. But there have been many times when Ronnie’s proven he has more bottle than anyone.

Re: Who do you rate as the greater player?

Postby Johnny Bravo

Andre147 wrote:I dont agree with that. In 50 or 100 years time someone could easily knock 18 century breaks in a Best of 35 match.

Who would have thought the level of play would be where it is today 50 years ago?

That is literally impossible.
One would need a complete marmite as opposition in order to do that. And even so, it's odds against it ever happening.

Re: Who do you rate as the greater player?

Postby mick745

TheRocket wrote:
mick745 wrote:
We look back 100 years ago and think snooker was played to a primitive standard back then (with the benefit of our hindsight). In 100 years, with another 100 years of himan experience and knowledge of playing the game the fans of the future may look back and think snooker of our times was a primitive standard (with the benefit of their hindsight).

As others have said it is only just scratching the surface of global reach. Wait until you see the standard of the world final in 2065 between that Argentinian and Croatian pair.


The World final in 2065 might have a very high standard but will all due respect, I highly doubt that Snooker will ever be a big deal in Argentina or Croatia. It will never be a big deal globally like other sports are.


It only takes one player from each of those countries though. Neil Robertson has said on numerous occasions there is virtually zero interest in snooker in Australia yet they still produced a world champion. Who knows how a sporting interest in a country can be sparked off.

At one time Germany was a tennis backwater but suddenly produced Wimbledon champions Graf and Becker.

Re: Who do you rate as the greater player?

Postby mick745

As my Father would have said 'never' is a long time. There are numerous sporting records that people thought would 'never'be broken yet eventually they are.

Take the Men's 100 metres world record, the first sub 10 seconds was in the 1960s, so it has come down by half a second in 60 years.

Either Usain Bolt's record stands forever or standards will rise and it will be beaten, and the record after that, and the one after that, a few hundreths of a second every few years or decades would eventually get to a sub 9 seconds. We just dont know what will happen except that no athletics records have ever stayed unbeaten in perpetuity.

Re: Who do you rate as the greater player?

Postby Johnny Bravo

mick745 wrote:As my Father would have said 'never' is a long time. There are numerous sporting records that people thought would 'never'be broken yet eventually they are.

Take the Men's 100 metres world record, the first sub 10 seconds was in the 1960s, so it has come down by half a second in 60 years.

Either Usain Bolt's record stands forever or standards will rise and it will be beaten, and the record after that, and the one after that, a few hundreths of a second every few years or decades would eventually get to a sub 9 seconds. We just dont know what will happen except that no athletics records have ever stayed unbeaten in perpetuity.

NO HUMAN IN EVER GONNA RUN UNDER 9 SECONDS !!!

Not unless he's genetically enhanced or half cyborg or something. There is a limitation as to how much force our muscles, joints and bones can handle.
The improvements you speak off have been achieved mainly due to improvements in nutrition, training track conditions and running equipment.
But we are very close to the limits of the human body, we are starting to plateau.

Re: Who do you rate as the greater player?

Postby mick745

Johnny Bravo wrote:
mick745 wrote:As my Father would have said 'never' is a long time. There are numerous sporting records that people thought would 'never'be broken yet eventually they are.

Take the Men's 100 metres world record, the first sub 10 seconds was in the 1960s, so it has come down by half a second in 60 years.

Either Usain Bolt's record stands forever or standards will rise and it will be beaten, and the record after that, and the one after that, a few hundreths of a second every few years or decades would eventually get to a sub 9 seconds. We just dont know what will happen except that no athletics records have ever stayed unbeaten in perpetuity.

NO HUMAN IN EVER GONNA RUN UNDER 9 SECONDS !!!

Not unless he's genetically enhanced or half cyborg or something. There is a limitation as to how much force our muscles, joints and bones can handle.
The improvements you speak off have been achieved mainly due to improvements in nutrition, training track conditions and running equipment.
But we are very close to the limits of the human body, we are starting to plateau.


Time will tell....

(the same was once said about man running a mile in under four minutes that it was 'impossible').

Re: Who do you rate as the greater player?

Postby mick745

A question that cannot be answered is "what is the upper limit for human achievement"?

If sub-9 seconds isnt humanly possible then is 9.10?, what about 9.20 or 9.30?

If 9.30 is doable, why not 9.29 or 9.28, etc. If 9.1 is possible why not 9.09?

Re: Who do you rate as the greater player?

Postby Johnny Bravo

mick745 wrote:A question that cannot be answered is "what is the upper limit for human achievement"?

If sub-9 seconds isnt humanly possible then is 9.10?, what about 9.20 or 9.30?

If 9.30 is doable, why not 9.29 or 9.28, etc. If 9.1 is possible why not 9.09?

Cause there's a limit to the human body, that's why.

Re: Who do you rate as the greater player?

Postby mick745

Johnny Bravo wrote:
mick745 wrote:A question that cannot be answered is "what is the upper limit for human achievement"?

If sub-9 seconds isnt humanly possible then is 9.10?, what about 9.20 or 9.30?

If 9.30 is doable, why not 9.29 or 9.28, etc. If 9.1 is possible why not 9.09?

Cause there's a limit to the human body, that's why.


What is the limit?

Re: Who do you rate as the greater player?

Postby Iranu

Johnny Bravo wrote:
mick745 wrote:A question that cannot be answered is "what is the upper limit for human achievement"?

If sub-9 seconds isnt humanly possible then is 9.10?, what about 9.20 or 9.30?

If 9.30 is doable, why not 9.29 or 9.28, etc. If 9.1 is possible why not 9.09?

Cause there's a limit to the human body, that's why.

What makes you think we’re anywhere close to it?

Re: Who do you rate as the greater player?

Postby Johnny Bravo

mick745 wrote:
Johnny Bravo wrote:
mick745 wrote:A question that cannot be answered is "what is the upper limit for human achievement"?

If sub-9 seconds isnt humanly possible then is 9.10?, what about 9.20 or 9.30?

If 9.30 is doable, why not 9.29 or 9.28, etc. If 9.1 is possible why not 9.09?

Cause there's a limit to the human body, that's why.


What is the limit?

Don't know an exact value, but if I had to guess, I'd say about 9.4 - 9.5 seconds for the 100m. Don't think anyone is ever gonna get below that.

Re: Who do you rate as the greater player?

Postby Johnny Bravo

Iranu wrote:
Johnny Bravo wrote:
mick745 wrote:A question that cannot be answered is "what is the upper limit for human achievement"?

If sub-9 seconds isnt humanly possible then is 9.10?, what about 9.20 or 9.30?

If 9.30 is doable, why not 9.29 or 9.28, etc. If 9.1 is possible why not 9.09?

Cause there's a limit to the human body, that's why.

What makes you think we’re anywhere close to it?

The fact that we have advanced so much in terms of training, nutrition, equipment etc, and most pro athletes rarely drop below 10 seconds.

Re: Who do you rate as the greater player?

Postby mick745

Johnny Bravo wrote:
Iranu wrote:
Johnny Bravo wrote:
mick745 wrote:A question that cannot be answered is "what is the upper limit for human achievement"?

If sub-9 seconds isnt humanly possible then is 9.10?, what about 9.20 or 9.30?

If 9.30 is doable, why not 9.29 or 9.28, etc. If 9.1 is possible why not 9.09?

Cause there's a limit to the human body, that's why.

What makes you think we’re anywhere close to it?

The fact that we have advanced so much in terms of training, nutrition, equipment etc, and most pro athletes rarely drop below 10 seconds.


At the moment but we've only been measuring athletics records for a very short period of time. In 1000 years time 7ft tall humans with huge leg strides may be commonplace. If people get gradually stronger, faster, taller etc over many generations then over a very long period of time this will have a big change.