Well done John Higgins

Caledonian Craig wrote:Just to add that my table is made up of the following:-

Ranking titles won
World titles
World finals
UK Titles
Masters Titles
Centuries Scored
Maximums Scored
Centuries Average Per Season

Yes but remember this was posted to include if for Seifer's purpose so that Ronnie got every chance and he still never finished top.

take the bottom 3 stats away and re-work and i think your results will settle this

Wouldn't factor in Joe Davis as his titles were not knockout format. It was like boxing where the champion automatically defended his crown the following year.

Fine then taking out the last three stats then the results would be as follows.....

Stephen Hendry = 29 points
Steve Davis = 24 points
John Higgins = 18 points
Ronnie O'Sullivan = 16 points
Mark Williams = 9 points

Caledonian Craig wrote:Stephen Hendry = 29 points
Steve Davis = 24 points
John Higgins = 18 points
Ronnie O'Sullivan = 16 points
Mark Williams = 9 points

my case is bucking closed....thanks craig

craig please show the forum a breakdown on your amazing stats

My main problem with even contemplating Ronnie as GOAT is for that accolade your all-round game and mental attitude has to be top notch and in the mental department ie concentration, heart, desire he falls way short of others in this list.

He is the most naturally gifted snooker player off all-time but that doesn't mean he is the GOAT. Far from it due to his flaws.

Stats breakdown as follows:-

Ranking Titles Wins

Stephen Hendry 5 points for 36 ranking tournament wins
Steve Davis 4 points for 28 ranking tournament wins
John Higgins 3 points for 23 ranking tournament wins
Ronnie O'Sullivan 2 points for 22 ranking tournament wins
Mark Williams 1 point for 18 ranking tournament wins

More to follow.....

World Title Wins

Stephen Hendry 5 points for 7 wins
Steve Davis 4 points for 6 wins
Ronnie O'Sullivan 3 points for 3 wins
John Higgins 3 points for 3 wins
Mark Williams 1 point for 2 wins

More to follow.....

World Title Runners-Up

Stephen Hendry 5 points for two times runner-up
Steve Davis 4 points for two times runner-up (on the reason being he has played in more world championships)
John Higgins 3 points for once runner-up
Mark Williams 3 points for once runner-up (couldn't be split as played in same amount)
Ronnie O'Sullivan 1 point as never a runner-up

More to follow.....

World Semi-Finalist

Stephen Hendry 5 points for twelve times semi-finalist
Steve Davis 4 points for 11 times semi-finalist
Ronnie O'Sullivan 3 points for 8 times semi-finalist
John Higgins 2 points for 6 rtimes semi-finalist
Mark Williams 1 point for 4 times semi-finalist

More to follow.....

UK Titles

Steve Davis 5 points for 6 wins
Stephen Hendry 4 points for 5 wins
Ronnie O'Sullivan 3 points for 4 wins
John Higgins 2 points for 3 wins
Mark Williams 1 point for 2 wins

More to follow.....

Masters Titles

Stephen Hendry 5 points for 6 wins
Ronnie O'Sullivan 4 points for 4 wins
Steve Davis 3 points for 3 wins
John Higgins 2 points for 2 wins
Mark Williams 2 points for 2 wins

And that concludes it.

very good and fair and true...no one can really argue..and im happy it backs up my opinion that higgins is 3rd best player

Can't really think of any other viable stats to include apart from years at No.1 and that wouldn't change things as Stephen Hendry comes out top there as well.

Caledonian Craig wrote:Can't really think of any other viable stats to include apart from years at No.1 and that wouldn't change things as Stephen Hendry comes out top there as well.

higgins leads ronnie on ranks aswell sinse 1998 higgins (i could be wrong) hasnt droped below 6th

my top 5 is and i do not count titles in my list BTW its purely as players so far

1 Hendry
2 Ronnie
3 Higgins
4 Davis
5 Williams

ive not added any other players because it will take some monumental performances from the likes of Robbo and Ding to break in to the top 5 but i think they are close to top 10 at the moment.

Let me just add that that table could change obviously as Higgins, Williams and O'Sullivan are all still amidst their careers. At the moment it is John Higgins that I can see improving his stats further. Ronnie - well that depends on him I think and Mark Williams may yet win another one or two ranking tournaments. Hendry I can't now see adding to his haul and the same goes for Davis.

yes craig ranks means alot as regards GOAT debates, factor them in just to prove even more that john leads ronnie

Rocket: why are you pushing this so much? I think Ronnie is second best of all time, and stats don't PROVE anything for some of us. Can you just relax a bit? If people think Higgins is second best or ahead of Ronnie in any way, no problem, but we don't need people like you saying 'this proves this' or 'that proves that'... how does a Welsh Open title hold so much bloody significance? It's all opinion, nothing has been proven or disproven?

One thing is clear it is a very tight call now between Ronnie and John as their stats such as ranking titles won are very close as are their world titles haul. Ronnie is the more naturally gifted but I'd say John has the better all-roung game ie temperament.

Caledonian Craig wrote:One thing is clear it is a very tight call now between Ronnie and John as their stats such as ranking titles won are very close as are their world titles haul. Ronnie is the more naturally gifted but I'd say John has the better all-roung game ie temperament.

Absolutely Craig. I think O'Sullivan is greater, some say Higgins is greater. There's a case for both great players, and I'm fine with that. But Rocket seems to think a Welsh Open title ends the argument conclusively? Ridiculous. Nothing's been proven. It's an open choice.

Caledonian Craig wrote:One thing is clear it is a very tight call now between Ronnie and John as their stats such as ranking titles won are very close as are their world titles haul. Ronnie is the more naturally gifted but I'd say John has the better all-roung game ie temperament.

thats just it ive never ranked who the best player is with how much they won Stephen just happened to win more than anyone thats a coincident.

i honestly find the top 5 a piece of snake hiss to name then it gets complicated but thoes 5 i named are rock solid the only change i could do is swap Steve with Williams.

Nice work Craig.

What a ridiculous way to rank people

Yet yous are all falling for this waffle

The Queen Limpet Rocket_Ron rallying the cause here

Whats your issue / agenda? You contribute zilch of your own opinions and just jump from person to person getting them to do your donkey work for you, then when you fall out with them, you change your tune and go looking for a new friend to cling onto and suck up to, being the voice for their thoughts and views and aggressively looking for trouble.

You used to be a compatriot of Seifer and me (a while back) and then you would sook up to us, get us to provide stats for you and you would argue Ronnie was the GOAT to everyone. Now youve taken the huff so have decided to become anti-Ronnie. Maybe you should change your user name?

Back to Craigs stats.......

Descending numbers of points for achievments rather than actually objectively looking at them for what there worth.

So by your logic someone could have 10 world titles and no runners ups so would get maximum marks for WC wins but be bottom of the list for the runners up. Why should these different types of "achievments" be scored the same.

Just like if you win 10 WC and the nearest rival in the comparison list is on 5 WC you only score 1 more point than them, despite having 5 more WC titles. Its a flawed way of ranking people.

Im sure if you add Jimmy to the mix and score his achievments alongside the rest then he will do ok.

Hes gonna be top points earner in the WC runners up bit for starters and im pretty sure he has 12 WC semis so thats him top of that too isnt it?

Hes a guy whos won 50 matches at the Crucible (enough to win 10 World Titles actually)

And last but not least, UP YER JACKSIE Rocket Ron.

Since you like lists youll be pleased to see your top of this weeks list of mine.

1) Rocket Ron
2) Wild
3) Snooker Fan
4) GJ

Wits, world championship runner-up is a massive achievement in itself and so a notable inclusion. I don't think Jimmy White would fair well due to his low amount of world title wins and would lie behind others in other areas as well.

Even, for Ronnie fans if we factor in stats that are in his favour (but not too relevant) such as centuries and maximum stats he still wouldn't finish top. If you wish me to change the scoring system okay but I am sure itwouldn't change the end result. What else do you feel should be added in that would be of relevance?

WITZ

A question and try to be fair and unbiased

if robbo wisn this years worlds and has 2 worldtitles would you still say doherty is ahead of him depsite doherty being 12 years older than robbo and having less world titles and ranking titles

?

Witz78 wrote:What a ridiculous way to rank people

Yet yous are all falling for this waffle

The Queen Limpet Rocket_Ron rallying the cause here

Whats your issue / agenda? You contribute zilch of your own opinions and just jump from person to person getting them to do your donkey work for you, then when you fall out with them, you change your tune and go looking for a new friend to cling onto and suck up to, being the voice for their thoughts and views and aggressively looking for trouble.

You used to be a compatriot of Seifer and me (a while back) and then you would sook up to us, get us to provide stats for you and you would argue Ronnie was the GOAT to everyone. Now youve taken the huff so have decided to become anti-Ronnie. Maybe you should change your user name?

Back to Craigs stats.......

Descending numbers of points for achievments rather than actually objectively looking at them for what there worth.

So by your logic someone could have 10 world titles and no runners ups so would get maximum marks for WC wins but be bottom of the list for the runners up. Why should these different types of "achievments" be scored the same.

Just like if you win 10 WC and the nearest rival in the comparison list is on 5 WC you only score 1 more point than them, despite having 5 more WC titles. Its a flawed way of ranking people.

Im sure if you add Jimmy to the mix and score his achievments alongside the rest then he will do ok.

Hes gonna be top points earner in the WC runners up bit for starters and im pretty sure he has 12 WC semis so thats him top of that too isnt it?

Hes a guy whos won 50 matches at the Crucible (enough to win 10 World Titles actually)

And last but not least, UP YER JACKSIE Rocket Ron.

Since you like lists youll be pleased to see your top of this weeks list of mine.

1) Rocket Ron
2) Wild
3) Snooker Fan
4) GJ

as i said i dont rank Hendry no 1 based on titles at all but as a player.

GJ wrote:WITZ

A question and try to be fair and unbiased

if robbo wisn this years worlds and has 2 worldtitles would you still say doherty is ahead of him depsite doherty being 12 years older than robbo and having less world titles and ranking titles

?

Maybe you should be directing this at Rocket Ron, after all hes the one who believes total ranking titles won is the gospel for how you rank players achievments and where they fit into the GOAT list.

Ive always based my opinions on personal beliefs on players abilities and skill, as much as achievments.

Hence i always ridicule you saying Robbo is better than Jimmy by virtue of having a WC title.

And as for Doherty, to be honest when did i ever rate him that highly, he was a decent player who had his best years before Ronnie, Higgins, Williams were dominating. After that he was on a par with the likes of Stevens to be honest.

I always had the likes of Ebdon, Thorburn and Griffiths rated more highly than Doherty to be honest.

And if it makes you happy, then yes id probably rate Robbo higher though its crazy for you to have him at about number 6 in the all time rankings

Witz has hit the nail on the head. It IS a ridiculous way to rank players (see his 10 world title to 5, one point extra argument).

I just can't believe that a Welsh Open win, probably the least prestigious ranker, now automatically makes John Higgins a better player when it was debatable before? It's ridiculous to me. It remains debatable as to whether Ronnie or John is the better player. I respect Craig as a poster, but this is a very flawed poitns system.