Pink Ball's Top 10 Players of All-Time

Pink Ball wrote:

Alex0paul wrote:Truly fantastic by TheRocket

Give him some petrol money, why don’t ya?

Getting boring mate

Alex0paul wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:

Alex0paul wrote:Truly fantastic by TheRocket

Give him some petrol money, why don’t ya?

Getting boring mate

It touches a nerve and I know it. That’s what I like about it.

Thanks everybody for the positive feedback. There's more to come and I'll complete the list very soon.
Not sure how many tiers there will be but players like Tom Ford also deserve to be mentioned somewhere.

TheRocket wrote:Thanks everybody for the positive feedback. There's more to come and I'll complete the list very soon.
Not sure how many tiers there will be but players like Tom Ford also deserve to be mentioned somewhere.

Definitely a great idea if you have the time.

For me, Tom Ford would be Tier 7.

Pink Ball wrote:

Alex0paul wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:

Alex0paul wrote:Truly fantastic by TheRocket

Give him some petrol money, why don’t ya?

Getting boring mate

It touches a nerve and I know it. That’s what I like about it.

Not sure what your problem with me is. Maybe jealousy?

TheRocket wrote:Thanks everybody for the positive feedback. There's more to come and I'll complete the list very soon.
Not sure how many tiers there will be but players like Tom Ford also deserve to be mentioned somewhere.

The Rocket, your list will never be official but is undoubtedly sexy. I would welcome you extending your tiered system.

Leave it fellas.

It ain't worth it.

Alex0paul wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:

Alex0paul wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:

Alex0paul wrote:Truly fantastic by TheRocket

Give him some petrol money, why don’t ya?

Getting boring mate

It touches a nerve and I know it. That’s what I like about it.

Not sure what your problem with me is. Maybe jealousy?

Honestly, never liked your style, very sneery. But I’m sure you feel the same way about me.

These are only forums, you could be sound for all I know. Either way, don’t take it to heart. You can’t get on with everyone. I’ll lay off on the petrol money stuff cos I know it bothers you.

I have no idea what you’re on about tbh

Alex0paul wrote:I have no idea what you’re on about tbh

Grand. There are worse things happening.

TheRocket wrote:Tier 1: GOAT candidates: Ronnie O'Sullivan, Stephen Hendry, Steve Davis

Tier 2: Borderline GOAT candidate: John Higgins

Tier 3: Solid All Time Great but not a GOAT candidate: Ray Reardon,Alex Higgins, Mark Williams, Mark Selby

Tier 4: Borderline All Time Greats: Jimmy White, Neil Robertson

Tier 5: Very good players but no All Time Greats: Ding Junhui, Judd Trump,Shaun Murphy, Peter Ebdon, John Parrott, Ken Doherty

Nice idea, but it needs some altering. For example, Davis is not a better player than Higgins.

Tier 1: GOAT: Ronnie O'Sullivan, the of snooker.

Tier 2: Borderline GOAT candidate: John Higgins, Stephen Hendry, Steve Davis

Tier 3: Solid All Time Great but not a GOAT candidate: Ray Reardon, Alex Higgins, Mark Williams, Mark Selby

Tier 4: Borderline All Time Greats: Jimmy White, Neil Robertson, Ding Junhui

Tier 5: Very good players but no All Time Greats: Judd Trump, Shaun Murphy, Peter Ebdon, John Parrott, Ken Doherty

If a poster posts the same thing over and over even if it isn't true it eventually becomes true.

I will prove it.

Robert Milkins and Tom Ford scare the hell out of Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Robert Milkins and Tom Ford scare the hell out of Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Robert Milkins and Tom Ford scare the hell out of Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Robert Milkins and Tom Ford scare the hell out of Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Robert Milkins and Tom Ford scare the hell out of Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Robert Milkins and Tom Ford scare the hell out of Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Robert Milkins and Tom Ford scare the hell out of Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Robert Milkins and Tom Ford scare the hell out of Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Robert Milkins and Tom Ford scare the hell out of Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Robert Milkins and Tom Ford scare the hell out of Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Robert Milkins and Tom Ford scare the hell out of Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Robert Milkins and Tom Ford scare the hell out of Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Robert Milkins and Tom Ford scare the hell out of Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Robert Milkins and Tom Ford scare the hell out of Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Robert Milkins and Tom Ford scare the hell out of Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Robert Milkins and Tom Ford scare the hell out of Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Robert Milkins and Tom Ford scare the hell out of Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Robert Milkins and Tom Ford scare the hell out of Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Robert Milkins and Tom Ford scare the hell out of Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Robert Milkins and Tom Ford scare the hell out of Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Robert Milkins and Tom Ford scare the hell out of Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Robert Milkins and Tom Ford scare the hell out of Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Robert Milkins and Tom Ford scare the hell out of Ronnie O'Sullivan.

This is now a fact....

It was the victory over Tom Ford that convinced me - and I think Johnny Bravo - that Ronnie is the greatest ever player.

You have to remember that he was fatigued after beating Martin O'Donnell as well.

I don't think Hendry would have negotiated a route to any final containing O'Donnell and Ford.

Q.E.D

Edit -can't believe this but he actually overcame Ken Doherty on the way too.

Don’t forget that heroic victory over Luke Simmons’s in Round 1. Trailed 1-0 as well

vodkadiet wrote:If a poster posts the same thing over and over even if it isn't true it eventually becomes true.

I will prove it.

Robert Milkins and Tom Ford fellate the hell out of Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Robert Milkins and Tom Ford fellate the hell out of Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Robert Milkins and Tom Ford fellate the hell out of Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Robert Milkins and Tom Ford fellate the hell out of Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Robert Milkins and Tom Ford fellate the hell out of Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Robert Milkins and Tom Ford fellate the hell out of Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Robert Milkins and Tom Ford fellate the hell out of Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Robert Milkins and Tom Ford fellate the hell out of Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Robert Milkins and Tom Ford fellate the hell out of Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Robert Milkins and Tom Ford fellate the hell out of Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Robert Milkins and Tom Ford fellate the hell out of Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Robert Milkins and Tom Ford fellate the hell out of Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Robert Milkins and Tom Ford fellate the hell out of Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Robert Milkins and Tom Ford fellate the hell out of Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Robert Milkins and Tom Ford fellate the hell out of Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Robert Milkins and Tom Ford fellate the hell out of Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Robert Milkins and Tom Ford fellate the hell out of Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Robert Milkins and Tom Ford fellate the hell out of Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Robert Milkins and Tom Ford fellate the hell out of Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Robert Milkins and Tom Ford fellate the hell out of Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Robert Milkins and Tom Ford fellate the hell out of Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Robert Milkins and Tom Ford fellate the hell out of Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Robert Milkins and Tom Ford fellate the hell out of Ronnie O'Sullivan.

This is now a fact....

Aye

Alex0paul wrote:Don’t forget that heroic victory over Luke Simmons’s in Round 1. Trailed 1-0 as well

All the time, he was exhibiting flu-like symptoms.

This guy is number 1: 1977

https://www.bbc.com/timelines/zghwmnb

A human logic has taken some massive steps forward during the last few years.

1) Much about the logic is that your previous comprehension isn´t on a way when a next one arrives.

2) And that a repetitiveness is part of the working logic. As long as it is valid what is being said, claimed ot argued. There just is a few buts, but mainly so.

3) AND that any given effort is better than no effort at all.

Those 3 things makes up the human logic. A lot´s people have been taken by a suprise of how much is has progressed. Any given new game or a computer is almost impossible to beat, for example. And the window always closes out a very, very quickly. So if it is a new game. So.... You figure. So that´s always probably so. Only some really well reasoned out algorithms can beat the modern computer. Otherwise the window always closes out sooner than later. No matter how much expressionism one would be winding up.

When watching out that Judd´s pre-Xmas 147 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL1WN-BNk9k it is only a two word thing; a d!ck of a horse.

Handy, a really handy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IocRCDWB5k. How logical ? Or how does it diges the word "world"... ??

Unfortunately some (scores) of people doesn´t posses a logic at all. Only the "quick-witted" spamming is an ever-present. And they nominate it as a "defence of what has been achieved". From OUR part. Come to talk to us, come and get laid by OUR girls... Rite.









But we all must understand R Voullei... We really must understand him. We must understand him. Ooooouuuuu, he, poor sad little s0d never had it, never was a MAN ENOUGH. So any given new innovation is ALWAYS his......... And all the President´s comes to see just him.................. Well, I can take a thinking concept like that, I can Digest it. Better than many other rewarding options......... At least it is funny now. And when that mentality was changed to everyone lol. I just probably hasn´t been reading comics much enough now when still being "slightly unhappy". I mean Still getting in there. Step by step. Just unable to use the Facebook rite now. And so given the final touches. There were a French citizen Peter who was arrested in Africa. And that one man has been arrested 1475 times during this year.

Lately I've been thinking of an objective manner to settle the GOAT debate once and for all. So I've come up with the current method:

1. We give a predefined pointing value to all events:
- the WC is worth 4 points;
- the Masters and UK are worth 2;
- all other regular rankers are worth 1;
- minor rankers and non-rankers/invitationals are worth 0,5 points.

2. Then, we factor in the era in which all time greats won their titles and the opposition they faced.
Just like they do in football with the Golden Shoe, we give a coefficient to each era:
- the 70's coefficient is 1;
- the 80's is also 1;
- the 90's is 1,5;
- the 00's are 2;
- the 10's are also 2.

So now we just have to multiply the value of each title with the era coefficient. With that in mind we have the following order:

1. ROS:
- 5 WC - 3 in the 00's and 2 in the 10's.
So that's 3 WC worth 4 points each multiplied by the era coefficient of 2 + 2 WC worth 4 points multiplied by the era coefficient of 2 for a grand total of 40 points.
- 7 Masters, 1 in the 90's, 3 in the 00's, and 3 in the 10's. 1x2x1,5 + 3x2x2 + 3x2x2 = 27 points
- 7 UK, 2 in the 90's, 2 in the 00's and 3 in the 10's. 2x2x1,5 + 2x2x2 + 3x2x2 = 26 points
- 22 rankers (not counting WC and UK titles): 5 in the 90's, 10 in the 00's, 7 in the 10's.

Hendry: 7 WC=10,5 points + 6 Masters= 9 points + 5 UK=7,5 points, which adds up to grand total of 27 points.

It is an interesting model JB - a lot of thought gone in here.

I think the problem though is that the coefficients are somewhat subjective.

Good work though.

yeah, it's not really objective when all the weightings are entirely arbitrary.

To me, there's one very important stat that never seems to be brought up in this debate, to wit:

Career Match Winning Percentage

75.14% Ronnie
69.15% Higgins
68.9% Hendry
68.5% Selby
64.46% Williams
63.32% Davis

Ronnie's lead over second place is massive, and it's worth noting that Ronnie's % is still increasing at the age where Hendry was already washed up and retired (or close to retiring).

Badsnookerplayer wrote:It is an interesting model JB - a lot of thought gone in here.

I think the problem though is that the coefficients are somewhat subjective.

Good work though.

I posted it by mistake while I was still typing. I will re post after I'm done

I also like to think about it this way. In my view, there are 7 "most important records" in snooker, in addition to match win %:

(In no particular order)

1. # World Championships
2. # UKs
3. # Masters
4. # Triple Crowns
5. # Ranking events
6. # Centuries
7. # 147s

Ronnie is currently at the top of the list for 5 out of those 7 records (and 6 out of 8 if you include win%), and he is very likely to also move to the top of the list in # ranking events. If/when that happens, he'll be at the top of the list for 7/8 of snooker's most important records...

Don't forget world ranking position

Badsnookerplayer wrote:Don't forget world ranking position

I'm not sure how best to summarize that over time, but I also tend to feel like the ranking system goes too far in the direction of rewarding "playing" in addition to "playing well", and is also too heavily affected by purse sizes (which relate much more to who is sponsoring the event than to the quality of the players who win the events).

I would have a lot more confidence in a rating system like the one used in golf, that (IMO) does a better job of measuring player performance...

I would also add that Ronnie's large advantage over Hendry in win% is particularly noteworthy when you consider that Hendry is widely-known as a guy who tried his hardest to win every match, whereas Ronnie is known as a guy who never won as much as he "should have" because he gave up too easily.

Even in spite of Ronnie's lack of mental strength and match toughness, he still has a huge lead over Hendry...

To say the 10s were as difficult as the 00s is to fundamentally not understand snooker

Pink Ball wrote:To say the 10s were as difficult as the 00s is to fundamentally not understand snooker

The quality of the top 5-6 players might have been better from 97 to around 05, but the Snooker tour is stronger in depth now. So in a way, that evens it out.

Anyway, here's the method I've come up with:

1. We give a predefined pointing value to all events:
- the WC is worth 4 points;
- the Masters and UK are worth 2;
- all other regular rankers are worth 1;
- minor rankers and other non-rankers/invitationals are worth 0,5 points.

2. Then, we factor in the era in which all time greats won their titles and the opposition they faced.
Just like they do in football with the Golden Shoe, we give a coefficient to each era:
- the 70's coefficient is 1;
- the 80's is also 1;
- the 90's is 1,5;
- the 00's are 2;
- the 10's are also 2.

So now we just have to multiply the value of each title with the era coefficient. With that in mind we have the following results:

Ronnie O'SULLIVAN
- 5 WC: 3 in the 00's and 2 in the 10's. 3x4x2 + 2x4x2 = 40 points.
- 7 Masters: 1 in the 90's, 3 in the 00's, and 3 in the 10's. 1x2x1,5 + 3x2x2 + 3x2x2 = 27 points
- 7 UK: 2 in the 90's, 2 in the 00's and 3 in the 10's. 2x2x1,5 + 2x2x2 + 3x2x2 = 26 points
- 22 rankers (not counting WC and UK titles): 5 in the 90's, 10 in the 00's, 7 in the 10's.
5x1x1,5 + 10x1x2 + 7x1x2 = 42 points
- 26 non rankers (not counting Masters, and I've also counted the 98 Irish Masters, cause he won that fair and square, although he was disqualified for smoking pot): 7 in the 90's, 13 in the 00's, 6 in the 10's.
7x0,5x1,5 + 13x0,5x2 + 6x0,5x2 = 24,25 points
- 2 minor rankers: both in the 10's. 2x0,5x2 = 2 points
TOTAL = 161,25

Stephen HENDRY
- 7 WC: all in the 90's. 7x4x1,5 = 42 points
- 6 Masters: 1 in the 80's, 5 in the 90's. 1x2x1 + 5x2x1,5 = 17 points
- 5 UK: 1 in the 80's, 4 in the 90's. 1x2x1 + 4x2x1,5 = 14 points
- 24 rankers (no WC or UK): 4 in the 80's, 16 in the 90's, 4 in the 00's 4x1x1 + 16x1x1,5 + 4x1x2 = 36 points
- 34 non rankers (without Masters): 8 in the 80's, 22 in the 90's, 4 in the 00's
8x0,5x1 + 22x0.5x1,5 + 4x0,5x2 = 24,5 points
TOTAL: 133,5 points

John HIGGINS
- 4 WC: 1 in the 90's, 2 in the 00's, 1 in the 10's 1x4x1,5 + 2x4x2 + 1x4x2 = 30 points
- 2 Masters: 1 in the 90's, 1 in the 00's. 1x2x1,5 + 1x2x2 = 7 points
- 3 UK, 1 each in the 90's, 00's and 10's. 1x2x1,5 +1x2x2 + 1x2x2 = 11 points
- 23 rankers (no WC or UK): 10 in the 90's, 5 in the 00's, 8 in the 10's 10x1x1,5 + 5x1x2 + 8x1x2 = 41 points
- 17 non-rankers (without Masters): 4 in the 90's, 7 in the 00's, 6 in the 10's
4x0,5x1,5 + 7x0,5x2 + 6x0,5x2 = 16 points
- 3 minor rankers: all in the 10's. 3x0,5x2 = 3 points
TOTAL: 108 points

Steve DAVIS
- 6 WC: all in the 80's. 6x4x1 = 24 points
- 3 Masters: 2 in the 80's and 1 in the 90's. 2x2x1 + 1x2x1,5 = 7 points
- 6 UK: all in the 80's. 6x2x1 =12 points
- 18 rankers (no WC and UK): 12 in the 80's, 6 in the 90's. 12x1x1 + 6x1x1,5 = 21 points
- 50 (no Master or UK - which wasn't always a ranker): 34 in the 80's, 14 in the 90's, 2 in the 10's.
34x0,5x1 + 14x0,5x1,5 + 2x0,5x2 = 29,5 points
TOTAL: 93,5 points

Mark SELBY
- 3 WC: all in the 10's. 3x4x2 = 24 points
- 3 Masters: 1 in the 00's, 2 in the 10's. 1x2x2 + 2x2x2 = 12 points
- 2 UK: in the 10's. 2x2x2 = 8 points
- 10 rankers (no WC or UK): 1 in the 00's, 9 in the 10's. 1x1x2 + 9x1x2 = 20 points
- 5 non-rankers (without Masters): 1 in the 00's, 4 in the 10's. 1x0,5x2 + 4x0,5x2 = 5 points
- 7 minor rankers: all in the 10's. 7x0,5x2 = 7 points
TOTAL: 76 points

Mark J. WILLIAMS
- 3 WC's: in the 90's, 00's and 10's. 1x4x1,5 +1x4x2 + 1x4x2 = 22 points
- 2 Masters: in the 90's and 00's. 1x2x1,5 + 1x2x2 = 7 points
- 2 UK's: in the 90's and 00's. 1x2x1,5 + 1x2x2 = 7 points
- 17 rankers: 6 in the 90's, 6 in the 00's, 5 in the 10's. 6x1x1,5 + 6x1x2 + 5x1x2 = 31 points
- 4 non rankers: 2 in the 90's, 1 in the 00's, 1 in the 10's. 2x0,5x1,5 + 1x0,5x2 + 1x0,5x2 = 3,5 points
- 2 minor rankers: in the 10's. 2x0,5x2 = 2 points
TOTAL: 72,5 points

Junhui DING
- no WC.
- 1 Masters: in the 10's. 1x2x2 = 4 points
- 2 UK: in the 00's. 2x2x2 = 8 points
- 11 rankers: 2 in the 00's, 9 in the 10's. 2x1x2 + 9x1x2 = 22 points
- 3 non rankers: 2 in the 00's, 1 in the 10's. 3x0,5x2 + 1x0,5x2 = 4 points
- 4 minor rankers: in the 10's. 4x0,5x2 = 4 points
TOTAL: 42 points

Neil ROBERTSON
- 1 WC - in the 10's 1x4x2 = 8 points
- 1 Masters: in the 10's. 1x2x2 = 4 points
- 1 UK: in the 10's. 1x2x2 = 4 points
- 11 rankers: 4 in the 00's, 7 in the 10's. 4x1x2 +7x1x2 = 22 points
- 4 non rankers: 1 in the 00's, 3 in the 10's. 1x0,5x2 + 3x0,5x2 = 4 points
- 4 minor rankers: in the 10's. 4x0,5x2 = 4 points
TOTAL: 46 points

Ray REARDON
- 6 WC: in the 70's. 6x4x1 = 24 points
- 1 Masters, in the 70's. 1x2x1 = 2 points
- 1 ranker: in the 80's. 1x1x1 = 1 point
- 18 non rankers: 1 in the 60's, 13 in the 70's, 4 in the 80's. 1x0,5x1 + 13x0,5x1 + 4x0,5x1 = 9 points
TOTAL: 35 points

Alex HIGGINS
- 2 WC: in the 70's and 80's. 1x4x1 +1x4x1 = 8 points
- 2 Masters: in the 70's and 80's. 1x2x1 + 1x2x1 = 4 points
- 1 UK: in the 80's. 1x2x1 = 2 points
- 19 non-rankers: 12 in the 70's, 7 in the 80's. 19x0,5x1 = 9,5 points
TOTAL: 23,5 points
Jimmy WHITE:
- 1 Masters, in the 80's. 1x2x1 = 2 points
- 1 UK, in the 90's. 1x2x1,5 = 3 points
- 9 rankers: 4 in the 80's, 4 in the 90's, 1 in the 00's. 4x1x1 + 4x1x1,5 +1x1x2 = 12 points
- 21 non rankers: 12 in the 80's, 5 in the 90's, 1 in the 00's, 3 in the 10's.
12x0,5x1 + 5x0,5x1,5 + 1x0,5x2 +3x0,5x2 = 13,75 points
TOTAL: 28,75 points.

So, at the end of the day, this is how the list came out:
1. Ronnie O'SULLIVAN - 161,25 points
2. Stephen HENDRY - 133,5 points
3. John HIGGINS - 108 points
4. Steve DAVIS - 93,5 points
5. Mark SELBY - 76 points
6. Mark J. WILLIAMS - 72,5 points
7. Neil ROBERTSON - 46 points
8. Junhui DING - 42 points
9. Ray REARDON - 35 points
10. Jimmy WHITE - 28,75 points
11. Alex HIGGINS - 23,5 points

Since my method only took into account titles and the era in which they were achieved, I will also count impact on the sport as a 3rd factor. Players will be evaluated on scale o 1 to 5, each step being worth 3 points. With that in mind, here's their impact on the sport list and points:
1. Ronnie O'SULLIVAN - impact: 5 - 15 points.
2. Stephen HENDRY - impact: 5 - 15 points.
3. John HIGGINS - impact: 3 - 9 points.
4. Steve DAVIS - impact: 5 - 15 points.
5. Mark SELBY - impact:3 - 9 points.
6. Mark J. WILLIAMS - impact:3 - 9 points.
7. Neil ROBERTSON - impact:3 - 9 points.
8. Junhui DING - impact:3 - 9 points.
9. Ray REARDON - impact:3 - 9 points.
10. Jimmy WHITE - impact:3 - 9 points.
11. Alex HIGGINS - impact:5 - 15 points.

After I added their impact points, here's how the list evolved:
1. Ronnie O'SULLIVAN - 176,25 points
2. Stephen HENDRY - 148,5 points
3. John HIGGINS - 117 points
4. Steve DAVIS - 108,5 points
5. Mark SELBY - 85 points
6. Mark J. WILLIAMS - 81,5 points
7. Neil ROBERTSON - 55 points
8. Junhui DING - 51 points
9. Ray REARDON - 44 points
10. Alex HIGGINS - 38,5 points
11. Jimmy WHITE - 37,75 points

The top 4 came out ok, but the list seems to have flaws.
I reckon it's down to 2 reasons:
- back in the 70's and the 80's there were a lot less rankers, so the old players are at a disadvantage. Maybe rankers and non-rankers should all be valued at 1 point ?!
- the coefficients don't have the right value.

I didn't account for tons, cause the playing conditions and equipment have improved a lot and the older player would be to disadvantaged.

What do u guys think ?