Talent versus Titles

On one of my internet voyages today, I went on something of a Formula One binge. The records, the history, the views. Formula One is a sport that I've had much interest in from a young age, and I remain an avid follower.

The records however ring very familiar to snooker. In Formula One, only one driver can claim to have seven World titles, while in snooker, the same is true in terms of Crucible wins (Schumacher-Hendry).

In second place more often than not, in terms of race wins, fastest laps, podiums etc. comes Alain Prost. He is a four time World Champion, but what's more, opinion of him would not suggest that. He is often labelled as a 'professor', astute and, at times, boring in many opinions. Very often however, he got the better of his main rival. See what I'm getting at?

Far more highly thought of, as far as I could gather, is the awesomely talented Ayrton Senna. He won three world titles, was extravagent in what he did and possessed an other worldly sort of personality that raised eyebrows everywhere he went. His talent has put him ahead of the more succesful Prost in many, many greatest ever lists.

To top it all off, their was a very talented Brit, a nice guy that everyone loved and racked up a plethora of wins. Won fuckall world titles, though there were plenty worse drivers who did just that. Stirling Moss, meet your cousin Jimmy White.

So what does all this mean? Well, even I'm not entirely sure, but I'll say this: I think titles count too much in the eyes of many snooker fans in judging the greatest players. It doesn't seem to work that way in Formula One, where drivers such as Senna, Clark, Moss and to a lesser extent Ascari, Raikkonen, Hakkinen, Gilles Villeneuve & Ronnie Peterson are hoisted aloft on the grounds of their inate talent.

History has a strange way of working itself out. Fans who judge on ability rather than titles tend to be scorned. Higgins is being judged as the greatest of his era already by many, and the second best of all time. But I'm still not convinced.

Anyway, it only shows how opinions work. Everyone's got one, that's the beauty and the beast of it

clutching@straws.com

Haha this is very interesting actually! I like it

why doesnt Fangio enter the equation?

hed 5 titles i think didnt he plus whilst it was a bygone era given the risks involved back then each title won then is certainly not deserving to be undervalued.

i 100% agree with you but in snooker the player that has played the best snooker has also won the most titles.

it doesn't always work like that but in snooker it does,

Wild wrote:i 100% agree with you but in snooker the player that has played the best snooker has also won the most titles.

it doesn't always work like that but in snooker it does,

Jimmy White?

jimmy white HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Witz78 wrote:

Wild wrote:i 100% agree with you but in snooker the player that has played the best snooker has also won the most titles.

it doesn't always work like that but in snooker it does,

Jimmy White?

Jimmy White what ?????

Wild wrote:

Witz78 wrote:

Wild wrote:i 100% agree with you but in snooker the player that has played the best snooker has also won the most titles.

it doesn't always work like that but in snooker it does,

Jimmy White?

Jimmy White what ?????

well u seem to think that snookers exclusive to other sports in the respect that greatness is measured on titles won etc.

yet on the flipside i hear you often saying you use other factors other than just titles to determine who you define the greatest

ive never said titles define the greatest however if you don't keep winning people like you conveniently forget how great they were. and that will continue through every era.

its just coincidentally in snooker that Hendry the greatest player has won The Most Titles.

Wild wrote:ive never said titles define the greatest however if you don't keep winning people like you conveniently forget how great they were. and that will continue through every era.

its just coincidentally in snooker that Hendry the greatest player has won The Most Titles.

theres still strong debate on that subject too though

Witz78 wrote:why doesnt Fangio enter the equation?

hed 5 titles i think didnt he plus whilst it was a bygone era given the risks involved back then each title won then is certainly not deserving to be undervalued.

Well, it's quite similar to the way perhaps that Davis' records are largely overlooked?

Tubberlad wrote:

Witz78 wrote:why doesnt Fangio enter the equation?

hed 5 titles i think didnt he plus whilst it was a bygone era given the risks involved back then each title won then is certainly not deserving to be undervalued.

Well, it's quite similar to the way perhaps that Davis' records are largely overlooked?

Personally i find it an insult and total ignorance when people rule Davis out of the GOAT debate in lieu of the likes of Higgins, Hendry, Ronnie, mainly on the basis that for some reason his titles dont count as much cos it was x numbers of years ago when he won his.

Does that mean in a few years time, that Hendrys 7 world titles will only be worth about 4

The parallels are all over the place
Schumacher - Hendry (seven world titles, ahead in pretty much all aspects)
Prost - Higgins (both slated for being astute and professor like, 4 time world champions, upper hand a lot on Senna/Sullvan)
Senna - Sullivan (three world titles, strange personality, incredible raw talent)
Moss - White (both great, but zero world titles)
Piquet - Williams (very succesful in an era of great drivers, but often overlooked)
Fangio - Davis (both second on world titles, but largely overlooked in GOAT debates)

One obvious difference with Formula One is how reliant you are on your car and team. When Schumacher won his first two World Titles he immeadiately left Benneton for Ferrari even though he admitted he had no chance of winning the next World Title. He didn't win the title for another five years. It's a bit like football where someone like Steven Gerrard has no League Titles while there are far worse players who have several because they played for Man Utd.

Don't watch much Formula 1 msyelf, so not really equipped to give specifics into that sport. But what I will say is, the reason why the Who is the Greatest? debate in any sport provides varying opinion, because there is no one way of defining great.

Take the two men most are considered to be the two best players ever....

Stephen Hendry Won more ranking titles then anybody. Won more world titles then anybody. Dominated the game for a decade. Many think he is the greatest.

Ronnie O'Sullivan More naturally talented then anybody in the game. Including a prime Hendry. Can not practice for a month, pick up a new cue and turn it on enough to win a tournament. Only one or two players in the world that have even a chance of beating him when he's playing his best.

Now does being the greatest of all time mean you are the most conistent of all time? And won the most trophies? That's Hendry. Is it the most talented ever? That's Ronnie. But take Alex Higgins. He invented a whole new style of snooker, and played shots that even the other top players at the time didn't think existed. People didn't know how to play against him at his best, because they'd put him in what they'd think was an inescapable snooker and it would lead to Alex potting a ball. His attacking game was popularised by the more successful Hendry, and now everybody plays that way. But the Hurricane invented a whole new style of play. That makes him great for a different reason.

The problem is greatness isn't defined in a measurable way. There is not one thing that makes a person great. The reason the debate will always rage on is for that very reason. You can both be equally great, just for different reasons. This is why the Ronnie vs Hendry debate has been drawn on for so long, and bored/annoyed so many people. It can't really be resolved in any measurable way. (And no, not even if you have stats.)