by Holden Chinaski » 19 Jan 2019 Read
Interesting system, JB.
At the end of the day, Ronnie, Hendry, J. Higgins, and S. Davis will always come out on top. Nobody can deny those four are better than the rest.
I would place Ray Reardon at number five because he dominated his era and he was the blueprint for those top four guys. Reardon is often underestimated. He was great and definitely deserves a top five spot.
-
Holden Chinaski
- Posts: 29705
- Joined: 26 July 2013
- Location: Belgium
- Snooker Idol: The Belgiums
- Walk-On: A little less conversation - Elvis
by gallantrabbit » 19 Jan 2019 Read
Any winner is worthy of a high ranking. And I mean mainly WC wins mainly. So RR at 5 is a good shout.
-
gallantrabbit
- Posts: 2010
- Joined: 08 February 2010
- Location: são paulo
- Snooker Idol: forever jimmy
- Highest Break: 134
by SnookerFan » 19 Jan 2019 Read
-
SnookerFan
- Posts: 148404
- Joined: 13 December 2009
- Snooker Idol: Michaela Tabb
- Walk-On: Entry Of The Gladiators
-
by Johnny Bravo » 19 Jan 2019 Read
SnookerFan wrote:
Please go read it and give us your thoughts.
-
Johnny Bravo
- Posts: 7400
- Joined: 24 November 2016
- Snooker Idol: Ronnie O Sullivan
- Highest Break: 122
by Iranu » 19 Jan 2019 Read
I think it's a colossal waste of time personally, interesting as it is.
There's no way to have a truly objective GOAT points system, and anyway we already have the official list
-
Iranu
- Posts: 40998
- Joined: 24 January 2010
- Walk-On: Fort Knox - Noel Gallagher's High Flying Birds
by Badsnookerplayer » 20 Jan 2019 Read
I don't think it is a waste of time.
JB is onto it and it is convincing as an argument.
-
Badsnookerplayer
- Posts: 26554
- Joined: 05 February 2017
- Snooker Idol: Bill Werbeniuk
by Pink Ball » 20 Jan 2019 Read
Iranu wrote:I think it's a colossal waste of time personally, interesting as it is.
There's no way to have a truly objective GOAT points system, and anyway we already have the official list
Whether you think it's a waste of time or not, I've seen worse methods of working out who is the greatest player ever.
-
Pink Ball
- Posts: 22232
- Joined: 07 April 2015
- Location: Galway city, Ireland
- Snooker Idol: You are a banker
- Walk-On: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkfgIUiCiUQ
by HappyCamper » 20 Jan 2019 Read
it's a lot of words and playing about with spreadsheets just to determine that o'sullivan is the best which is something that is blindingly obvious anyway.
-
HappyCamper
- Posts: 18376
- Joined: 05 November 2018
- Location: Edinburgh
- Snooker Idol: Graeme Dott
- Walk-On: Banana Chips by Shonen Knife
by HappyCamper » 20 Jan 2019 Read
For a more substantive critique I think my main questions would be:
i) How were the co-efficients for the eras determined? Was there anything more to it than 'what feels right'? Then you're just pre-supposing the results. The modern era is stronger therefore modern players get a higher score and are 'proven' to be greater. It's not an unreasonable qualitative judgement; but it also isn't objective.
ii) The groupings of eras into decades I don't think can be justified. Was there really a difference between the 1989 and 1990 tours to justify a 50% increase in it's greatness? I think for this part you would need to take some average ability of all players on the tour in each given year, and compare this over time. to see where there were actual step changes in the level of quality. (The so-called class of 92 would be an obvious expected one).
iii) Same questions for the tournaments really. Again the Crucible being worth more is fair enough, but why twice as much? Beyond that; a (current season) China Open is not the same as a German Masters is not the same as an Indian Open. Should a distinction not be made between the old format UK and new? Ideally every tournament should be weighted appropriately by a combination of format (number and length of matches) and strength of field - ultimately these are what determines the level of achievement (probably).
iv) Why only titles? As much as winning events is ultimately the most important - completely discounting runner-ups and semi-finals seems wrong to me. White getting to so many World finals is definitely some sort of achievement.
v) Define 'greatness'. How can one be said to objectively measure something if we don't have a well defined starting point.
-
HappyCamper
- Posts: 18376
- Joined: 05 November 2018
- Location: Edinburgh
- Snooker Idol: Graeme Dott
- Walk-On: Banana Chips by Shonen Knife
by Johnny Bravo » 20 Jan 2019 Read
HappyCamper wrote:For a more substantive critique I think my main questions would be:
i) How were the co-efficients for the eras determined? Was there anything more to it than 'what feels right'? Then you're just pre-supposing the results. The modern era is stronger therefore modern players get a higher score and are 'proven' to be greater. It's not an unreasonable qualitative judgement; but it also isn't objective.
ii) The groupings of eras into decades I don't think can be justified. Was there really a difference between the 1989 and 1990 tours to justify a 50% increase in it's greatness? I think for this part you would need to take some average ability of all players on the tour in each given year, and compare this over time. to see where there were actual step changes in the level of quality. (The so-called class of 92 would be an obvious expected one).
iii) Same questions for the tournaments really. Again the Crucible being worth more is fair enough, but why twice as much? Beyond that; a (current season) China Open is not the same as a German Masters is not the same as an Indian Open. Should a distinction not be made between the old format UK and new? Ideally every tournament should be weighted appropriately by a combination of format (number and length of matches) and strength of field - ultimately these are what determines the level of achievement (probably).
iv) Why only titles? As much as winning events is ultimately the most important - completely discounting runner-ups and semi-finals seems wrong to me. White getting to so many World finals is definitely some sort of achievement.
v) Define 'greatness'. How can one be said to objectively measure something if we don't have a well defined starting point.
Those are some very good observations. I'm gonna try to improve my system, but as much as I'd want to, it seems it will never be perfect or completely objective.
-
Johnny Bravo
- Posts: 7400
- Joined: 24 November 2016
- Snooker Idol: Ronnie O Sullivan
- Highest Break: 122
by Badsnookerplayer » 20 Jan 2019 Read
I like it JB.
I don't think it will ever answer every question, but you should keep it going as time goes on.
It is an interesting analysis.
-
Badsnookerplayer
- Posts: 26554
- Joined: 05 February 2017
- Snooker Idol: Bill Werbeniuk
by TheSaviour » 21 Jan 2019 Read
Surely Judd Trump also should be there. Stating that, I foresee the way he dispatched Ronnie was and is the best he can play. He´s always immediately at it, splitting the pack. Which is basically what the break-building is all about.
Some nice "silver-fox" style from Ronnie. I think it suits him really well. The silver-fox. Which goes without saying means a few things. But fair to play him; he played almost flawless snooker. Or could be said that as much flawless snooker and personality than it is even possible to have and to posses. Judd has some flaws and obviously as well some stunning playing qualities as well. But just can´t see any other outcome than that Judd´s playing will get only worse from now on. But still, he´s a top-10 player of all-time, me thinks.
But over the moon we have now finally solved this eternal trouble of ours !!
Some hard work has finally paid off. It is all about everyone does what the Polish or the Germans do.... They don´t do what I or Ronnie do, but what the Polish and the Germans have done...
-
TheSaviour
- Posts: 1317
- Joined: 27 May 2014
- Location: Vandalising is boring when you have nothing to say.
- Snooker Idol: At times David Gilbert.
- Highest Break: 147
by Johnny Bravo » 21 Jan 2019 Read
Pink Ball wrote:Anyone ever PMd this trumper?
No bucking way, I might get whatever he has.
And I don't think it can be cured.
-
Johnny Bravo
- Posts: 7400
- Joined: 24 November 2016
- Snooker Idol: Ronnie O Sullivan
- Highest Break: 122
by Dan-cat » 22 Jan 2019 Read
Pink Ball wrote:Anyone ever PMd this trumper?
Yes, and we exchange texts. That I even understand.
-
Dan-cat
- Posts: 31240
- Joined: 20 August 2013
- Location: Shoreditch, London
- Snooker Idol: The Rocket + The Nugget
- Highest Break: 53
- Walk-On: www.instagram.com/dan_cat
-
by Dan-cat » 22 Jan 2019 Read
So i’m not sure why he spans these boards in the manner he does. Perhaps a 160 sms style character limit for the Saviour should be imposed?
-
Dan-cat
- Posts: 31240
- Joined: 20 August 2013
- Location: Shoreditch, London
- Snooker Idol: The Rocket + The Nugget
- Highest Break: 53
- Walk-On: www.instagram.com/dan_cat
-
by HappyCamper » 22 Jan 2019 Read
I just assumed he was sent kind of Markov bot or something. If he's as actual human...
-
HappyCamper
- Posts: 18376
- Joined: 05 November 2018
- Location: Edinburgh
- Snooker Idol: Graeme Dott
- Walk-On: Banana Chips by Shonen Knife
by Badsnookerplayer » 22 Jan 2019 Read
Can we all stop demonising the Saviour.
He knows about snooker and we should welcome him.
There is a lot of wisdom in those posts if you are prepared to look
P.S. He is ex-Mossad so you can snake hiss him off if you like but it might be best not to visit any snooker tournaments for a while.
-
Badsnookerplayer
- Posts: 26554
- Joined: 05 February 2017
- Snooker Idol: Bill Werbeniuk
by Cloud Strife » 22 Jan 2019 Read
Badsnookerplayer wrote:Can we all stop demonising the Saviour.
He knows about snooker and we should welcome him.
There is a lot of wisdom in those posts if you are prepared to look
P.S. He is ex-Mossad so you can snake hiss him off if you like but it might be best not to visit any snooker tournaments for a while.
(((TheSaviour)))
-
Cloud Strife
- Posts: 18548
- Joined: 28 January 2014
- Location: Antarctica
- Snooker Idol: Roger Federer
- Highest Break: 155
- Walk-On: Don Vedda - buck You
-
by SnookerFan » 22 Jan 2019 Read
Dan-cat wrote:Pink Ball wrote:Anyone ever PMd this trumper?
Yes, and we exchange texts. That I even understand.
I did once, and got an intelligible/friendly response.
-
SnookerFan
- Posts: 148404
- Joined: 13 December 2009
- Snooker Idol: Michaela Tabb
- Walk-On: Entry Of The Gladiators
-
by Ash147 » 22 Jan 2019 Read
Cloud Strife wrote:Badsnookerplayer wrote:Can we all stop demonising the Saviour.
He knows about snooker and we should welcome him.
There is a lot of wisdom in those posts if you are prepared to look
P.S. He is ex-Mossad so you can snake hiss him off if you like but it might be best not to visit any snooker tournaments for a while.
(((TheSaviour)))
Oy Vey!
-
Ash147
- Posts: 8136
- Joined: 14 November 2018
- Walk-On: Baby Shark Doo Doo
by SnookerFan » 22 Jan 2019 Read
Badsnookerplayer wrote:Can we all stop demonising the Saviour.
He knows about snooker and we should welcome him.
There is a lot of wisdom in those posts if you are prepared to look
P.S. He is ex-Mossad so you can snake hiss him off if you like but it might be best not to visit any snooker tournaments for a while.
The Saviour once taught me that there's nothing wrong with getting to know our cousins.
Then he said something about Ebdon going for a swim.
-
SnookerFan
- Posts: 148404
- Joined: 13 December 2009
- Snooker Idol: Michaela Tabb
- Walk-On: Entry Of The Gladiators
-
by Badsnookerplayer » 22 Jan 2019 Read
The Saviour should be as free to post and express himself as anybody on the Island.
If we don't want to read his posts we don't have to.
בְּהַצְלָחָה
-
Badsnookerplayer
- Posts: 26554
- Joined: 05 February 2017
- Snooker Idol: Bill Werbeniuk
by Cloud Strife » 22 Jan 2019 Read
Badsnookerplayer wrote:The Saviour should be as free to post and express himself as anybody on the Island.
If we don't want to read his posts we don't have to.
בְּהַצְלָחָה
-
Cloud Strife
- Posts: 18548
- Joined: 28 January 2014
- Location: Antarctica
- Snooker Idol: Roger Federer
- Highest Break: 155
- Walk-On: Don Vedda - buck You
-
by Wildey » 25 Jan 2019 Read
Johnny Bravo wrote:
What do u guys think ?
cant be fussed to read it
-
Wildey
- Posts: 64104
- Joined: 02 October 2009
- Location: North Wales
- Snooker Idol: Mark Selby
- Highest Break: 25
- Walk-On: the one and only
by Badsnookerplayer » 02 Mar 2019 Read
Load of old pony.
I have shat more convincing arguments than that.
Question:If it is so clear that ROS is better then why do you have to keep making the case for the prosecution? Surely everybody would be convinced.
-
Badsnookerplayer
- Posts: 26554
- Joined: 05 February 2017
- Snooker Idol: Bill Werbeniuk
by SnookerFan » 02 Mar 2019 Read
ROS is the best, but his fans seem to be the ones who need the most convincing.
-
SnookerFan
- Posts: 148404
- Joined: 13 December 2009
- Snooker Idol: Michaela Tabb
- Walk-On: Entry Of The Gladiators
-
by Holden Chinaski » 02 Mar 2019 Read
No arguments are needed. Just watch Ronnie play his A game.
-
Holden Chinaski
- Posts: 29705
- Joined: 26 July 2013
- Location: Belgium
- Snooker Idol: The Belgiums
- Walk-On: A little less conversation - Elvis