Post a reply

Re: Who is better? Wattana or Carter? (Another eras debate z

Postby Wildey » 28 Feb 2011 Read

Witz78 wrote:my take on the Ronnie - Hendry debate has always been based on the players skills and strengths rather than titles and matches won. <ok>

thats exactly how i think also

and the answer is the same.

Stephen was a better player than Ronnie.

Re: Who is better? Wattana or Carter? (Another eras debate z

Postby Monique » 28 Feb 2011 Read

This wasn't a Ronnie vs Hendry debate although we all know the authors intentions.
So to make it crystal clear
1. I consider that the GOAT debate is between Hendry and Steve Davis, nobody else
2. Ronnie's opinion is that Hendry is the best. That's good enough; the boy knows what he's talking about when it's about snooker.
3. My point was never about who is the GOAT but about the the 7 vs 3 or 2 World titles. It's not about Hendry vs ROS it's about Hendry vs any of ROS, Higgins or Williams. My opinion based on stats during the era when they all four were competing at or near their best AND the fact that when four players of exception compete titles are necessarily shared, so, my opinion is that there is very little between the four. Hendry being the absolute dedicated pro, Higgins the predator, Williams the gifted laidback and ROS the mercurial genius and artist.
We were priviledged to see them all in action and we should be gratefull for that.
4. the early 90th AND the late 00th as well as the recent years are weaker than the glorious 1996-2005 decade.
end of rant and end of debate for me.

Re: Who is better? Wattana or Carter? (Another eras debate z

Postby Caledonian Craig » 28 Feb 2011 Read

To single out certain players though like Gary Wilkinson for not winning anything is a tad harsh. It must be remembered who he was competing with at that time to win tournaments such as legends like Steve Davis, Alex Higgins, Jimmy White and latterly Stephen Hendry. Take players from even 1996-2005 in top 16 such as Stephen Lee, Feargal O'Brien, Anthony Hamilton, Barry Hawkins, Ali Carter, Mark King etc and I'd say they'd struggle to win a tournament in that era as well. Good pioint about how quickly he plummeted down the rankings though. May be wrong here but didn't he have something wrong with him like nerves or something that he needed to take pills for?

Re: Who is better? Wattana or Carter? (Another eras debate z

Postby Witz78 » 28 Feb 2011 Read

Caledonian Craig wrote:To single out certain players though like Gary Wilkinson for not winning anything is a tad harsh. It must be remembered who he was competing with at that time to win tournaments such as legends like Steve Davis, Alex Higgins, Jimmy White and latterly Stephen Hendry. Take players from even 1996-2005 in top 16 such as Stephen Lee, Feargal O'Brien, Anthony Hamilton, Barry Hawkins, Ali Carter, Mark King etc and I'd say they'd struggle to win a tournament in that era as well. Good pioint about how quickly he plummeted down the rankings though. May be wrong here but didn't he have something wrong with him like nerves or something that he needed to take pills for?


By your logic then the early 90s was stronger than the late 90s/early 00s since Wilkinson couldnt win anything in the early 90s yet a "similar" player Lee managed to win FOUR rankers during the late90s/early 00s period.

Seems to be an excuse for everyone who droppd out of the top 16 around the mid 90s rofl maybe the fact a wave of top new talent had started to emerge had something to do with it :no:

Re: Who is better? Wattana or Carter? (Another eras debate z

Postby GJ » 28 Feb 2011 Read

Witz78 wrote:
Caledonian Craig wrote:To single out certain players though like Gary Wilkinson for not winning anything is a tad harsh. It must be remembered who he was competing with at that time to win tournaments such as legends like Steve Davis, Alex Higgins, Jimmy White and latterly Stephen Hendry. Take players from even 1996-2005 in top 16 such as Stephen Lee, Feargal O'Brien, Anthony Hamilton, Barry Hawkins, Ali Carter, Mark King etc and I'd say they'd struggle to win a tournament in that era as well. Good pioint about how quickly he plummeted down the rankings though. May be wrong here but didn't he have something wrong with him like nerves or something that he needed to take pills for?


By your logic then the early 90s was stronger than the late 90s/early 00s since Wilkinson couldnt win anything in the early 90s yet a "similar" player Lee managed to win FOUR rankers during the late90s/early 00s period.

Seems to be an excuse for everyone who droppd out of the top 16 around the mid 90s rofl maybe the fact a wave of top new talent had started to emerge had something to do with it :no:



era debate

:zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :zzz:

Re: Who is better? Wattana or Carter? (Another eras debate z

Postby Witz78 » 28 Feb 2011 Read

Bourne wrote:"All my people love me"
"They are not fighting on the streets"

He's gone potty <laugh>


the US and UK media are putting a false spin on events

Dont waste your cash on that filthy tabloid trash

the drugs are wearing off now thankfully and there dropping the guns <ok>

Re: Who is better? Wattana or Carter? (Another eras debate z

Postby Caledonian Craig » 28 Feb 2011 Read

Witz78 wrote:
Caledonian Craig wrote:To single out certain players though like Gary Wilkinson for not winning anything is a tad harsh. It must be remembered who he was competing with at that time to win tournaments such as legends like Steve Davis, Alex Higgins, Jimmy White and latterly Stephen Hendry. Take players from even 1996-2005 in top 16 such as Stephen Lee, Feargal O'Brien, Anthony Hamilton, Barry Hawkins, Ali Carter, Mark King etc and I'd say they'd struggle to win a tournament in that era as well. Good pioint about how quickly he plummeted down the rankings though. May be wrong here but didn't he have something wrong with him like nerves or something that he needed to take pills for?


By your logic then the early 90s was stronger than the late 90s/early 00s since Wilkinson couldnt win anything in the early 90s yet a "similar" player Lee managed to win FOUR rankers during the late90s/early 00s period.

Seems to be an excuse for everyone who droppd out of the top 16 around the mid 90s rofl maybe the fact a wave of top new talent had started to emerge had something to do with it :santa:


Wilkinson only did what a number of young pros found out in the first half of the 90's that the likes of Hendry was untouchable. Later after Hendry had passed his peak there wasn't really any one player that was so untouchable (strength in depth yes in the form of new kids on the block such as O'Sullivan, Williams and Higgins) but not the same invincibility about them as Hendry had. Not saying Wilkinson was magical or anything but there have been similar type players to scale the heights in later rankings that haven't rocked my boat so as to speak.

Re: Who is better? Wattana or Carter? (Another eras debate z

Postby Bourne » 28 Feb 2011 Read

Witz78 wrote:
Bourne wrote:"All my people love me"
"They are not fighting on the streets"

He's gone potty <laugh>


the US and UK media are putting a false spin on events

Dont waste your cash on that filthy tabloid trash

the drugs are wearing off now thankfully and there dropping the guns <ok>

I just watched the interview :farmer:

Re: Who is better? Wattana or Carter? (Another eras debate z

Postby GJ » 28 Feb 2011 Read

vodkadiet wrote:Wasn't Ryan Day number 6 recently? Wilkinson reached number 5, and was a better player than Day is/was.



good point day is not a world number 6 no way

i think if you look at this years top 8 its stronger than last years for the worlds

2010

higgins
ronnie
maguire
murphy
carter
day
selby
fu

this year

robbo
higgins
williams
selby
ding
maguire
murphy
carter

Re: Who is better? Wattana or Carter? (Another eras debate z

Postby Wildey » 28 Feb 2011 Read

Witz78 wrote:
Caledonian Craig wrote:To single out certain players though like Gary Wilkinson for not winning anything is a tad harsh. It must be remembered who he was competing with at that time to win tournaments such as legends like Steve Davis, Alex Higgins, Jimmy White and latterly Stephen Hendry. Take players from even 1996-2005 in top 16 such as Stephen Lee, Feargal O'Brien, Anthony Hamilton, Barry Hawkins, Ali Carter, Mark King etc and I'd say they'd struggle to win a tournament in that era as well. Good pioint about how quickly he plummeted down the rankings though. May be wrong here but didn't he have something wrong with him like nerves or something that he needed to take pills for?


By your logic then the early 90s was stronger than the late 90s/early 00s since Wilkinson couldnt win anything in the early 90s yet a "similar" player Lee managed to win FOUR rankers during the late90s/early 00s period.

Seems to be an excuse for everyone who droppd out of the top 16 around the mid 90s rofl maybe the fact a wave of top new talent had started to emerge had something to do with it :no:

in the same way Caledonian Craig thinks one way and you think another way.

who is right nobody knows but instead of accepting the fact that we just dont know and never will know for sure you still load us up with your theories expecting us to bow down to them despite theres no proof what so ever on either argument's.

and BTW once and for all

ive never ever said titles = greatness you just thought that. ive always based my judgement on how someone played the game thats why i got Ronnie well clear of Higgins in second spot EVEN if Higgins wins a 4th World Title of course others will not see it that way but i will.

i based hendry no 1 on how hes played the game so brilliantly and NOT on tournaments won thats just a coincident.

Re: Who is better? Wattana or Carter? (Another eras debate z

Postby vodkadiet » 28 Feb 2011 Read

Witz78 wrote:
vodkadiet wrote:Wasn't Ryan Day number 6 recently? Wilkinson reached number 5, and was a better player than Day is/was.


proof please :santa:


What proof have you got that Carter was better than Tony Jones?

Re: Who is better? Wattana or Carter? (Another eras debate z

Postby Wildey » 28 Feb 2011 Read

vodkadiet wrote:
Witz78 wrote:
vodkadiet wrote:Wasn't Ryan Day number 6 recently? Wilkinson reached number 5, and was a better player than Day is/was.


proof please :santa:


What proof have you got that Carter was better than Tony Jones?

thats the point there is no proof. absalutly nothing.

Re: Who is better? Wattana or Carter? (Another eras debate z

Postby Witz78 » 28 Feb 2011 Read

vodkadiet wrote:
Witz78 wrote:
vodkadiet wrote:Wasn't Ryan Day number 6 recently? Wilkinson reached number 5, and was a better player than Day is/was.


proof please :santa:


What proof have you got that Carter was better than Tony Jones?


christ thats a blast from the past, havent heard his name in a while, wonder what happened to him? rofl

he was a poor man Chaperon i always thought :john:

Re: Who is better? Wattana or Carter? (Another eras debate z

Postby vodkadiet » 01 Mar 2011 Read

Witz78 wrote:
vodkadiet wrote:
Witz78 wrote:
vodkadiet wrote:Wasn't Ryan Day number 6 recently? Wilkinson reached number 5, and was a better player than Day is/was.


proof please :santa:


What proof have you got that Carter was better than Tony Jones?


christ thats a blast from the past, havent heard his name in a while, wonder what happened to him? rofl

he was a poor man Chaperon i always thought :john:


Proof please that he was a poor man's Chaperon? :selby:

Re: Who is better? Wattana or Carter? (Another eras debate z

Postby SnookerFan » 01 Mar 2011 Read

It's just too subjective a discussion, because the term 'great' is going to mean different things to different people. It's like the term 'fun'.

If you define great as being successful, having that hunger, and during your prime dominating all in front of you, then you will find Hendry as the greatest. If you are going solely on natural talent, and the ability to win more with the least amount of practice it's Ronnie.

This is why stats are useless in this argument, because people define great in different ways. Ronnie are Hendry are two great players, but for very different reasons.

Re: Who is better? Wattana or Carter? (Another eras debate z

Postby vodkadiet » 01 Mar 2011 Read

SnookerFan wrote:It's just too subjective a discussion, because the term 'great' is going to mean different things to different people. It's like the term 'fun'.

If you define great as being successful, having that hunger, and during your prime dominating all in front of you, then you will find Hendry as the greatest. If you are going solely on natural talent, and the ability to win more with the least amount of practice it's Ronnie.

This is why stats are useless in this argument, because people define great in different ways. Ronnie are Hendry are two great players, but for very different reasons.


It is irrelevant how much someone has practised. Some players play better without practising. How much prcatice someone has had has nothing to do with how great they are.

John Higgins just won The Welsh Open without practising. That makes him the greater than O'Sullivan in that case.

Anyway, how does anyone know how much someone has practised? Unless you are with the player 24 hours a day you cannot know. Just because someone says they haven't practiced much really means nothing.

Another point, when you have been playing a sport non stop since you were 6 or 7 how much practice do you really need at 35?

Re: Who is better? Wattana or Carter? (Another eras debate z

Postby vodkadiet » 01 Mar 2011 Read

SnookerFan wrote:Okay. In that case, it isn't subjective. <ok>


Greatness is defined by what a player wins, not what he might have won had he practicsed 10 hours a day.

I knew a former pro who practised 12 hours a day, and his form got worse. He later cut down on his practice and he performed a lot better. <ok>

Re: Who is better? Wattana or Carter? (Another eras debate z

Postby SnookerFan » 01 Mar 2011 Read

sub·jec·tive   

–adjective
1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective).
2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.
3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
4. Philosophy . relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.
5. relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.
6. pertaining to the subject or substance in which attributes inhere; essential.
7. Grammar .
a. pertaining to or constituting the subject of a sentence.
b. (in English and certain other languages) noting a case specialized for that use, as He in He hit the ball.
c. similar to such a case in meaning. Compare nominative.
8. Obsolete . characteristic of a political subject; submissive.

Re: Who is better? Wattana or Carter? (Another eras debate z

Postby SnookerFan » 01 Mar 2011 Read

vodkadiet wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:Okay. In that case, it isn't subjective. <ok>


Greatness is defined by what a player wins,


That's one way of measuring it certainly. And trophies won certainly comes into the equation.

I'm just making the point that people can be great for different reasons, so it's a subjective argument. Ronnie is a genius at play. I personally rank Hendry as the greater, due to his achievements. But others differ.

The point is they are both great, but for different reasons.
Post a reply