Post a reply

Re: Once and for all....

Postby Holden Chinaski

SnookerFan wrote:So, Ronnie is better basically?

Yep, I posted this on here somewhere before. Ronnie's six years older, so he's better.

Re: Once and for all....

Postby vodkadiet

O'Sullivan isn't fit to tie Federer's shoelaces. He would admit that himself.

Re: Once and for all....

Postby SnookerFan

vodkadiet wrote:O'Sullivan isn't fit to tie Federer's shoelaces. He would admit that himself.


I don't always like Ronnie as a person, but as a player your statement is absolute nonsense.

Re: Once and for all....

Postby SnookerFan

Alex0paul wrote:Some excellent responses there


They say the sport cannot be compared. I tend to agree.

Funny that this is all we seem to do on this site.

Re: Once and for all....

Postby Holden Chinaski

SnookerFan wrote:
vodkadiet wrote:O'Sullivan isn't fit to tie Federer's shoelaces. He would admit that himself.


I don't always like Ronnie as a person, but as a player your statement is absolute nonsense.

Indeed.

Re: Once and for all....

Postby Holden Chinaski

Of course the sports can't be compared. Tennis is a much more physical sport, while snooker is much more psychological. The mental aspect of snooker is what makes it a hard game to play in my opinion. There's also much more money in tennis. Also, tennis is for bankers while snooker is a real man's game.

Re: Once and for all....

Postby SnookerFan

Holden Chinaski wrote:Also, tennis is for bankers while snooker is a real man's game.


<ok>

Re: Once and for all....

Postby Holden Chinaski

I say the mental aspect of snooker is what makes it hard, but actually the technical side is far from easy as well... Snooker is a much more harder game to play on a high level than tennis in my opinion. Tennis is easy. Snooker is damn hard. Federer's not fit to tie Ronnie's bow tie!

Also, tennis players wear shorts, which makes them look even more like bankers.

Re: Once and for all....

Postby Iranu

Holden Chinaski wrote:Ronnie would do a lot better on a tennis court than Federer would do on a snooker table.

I'm not convinced that's true. Leading sportspeople seem to have a kind of natural affinity for lots of sports.

Not saying Fed would be anywhere near professional level, but I don't think it would take him that long to be able to make a grame winning break.

I do agree that snooker is a far harder game though. I've often said that professional snooker players are an extra level above your average person compared to other sports professionals , though that could just be because I know it better.

Re: Once and for all....

Postby SnookerFan

Holden Chinaski wrote:Ronnie would do a lot better on a tennis court than Federer would do on a snooker table.


Probably true.

I've said it before, the comparison is just due to an inferiority complex in snooker. For reasons that escape me, people want snooker to be more like tennis. Hence the desire for snooker's most famous player to be like a tennis player.

Re: Once and for all....

Postby Dan-cat

Holden Chinaski wrote:Ronnie would do a lot better on a tennis court than Federer would do on a snooker table.


Is an interesting point. Given six months, with a top coach, who would be better at their respective sports?

Desire is key though

Re: Once and for all....

Postby SnookerFan

Dan-cat wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:Ronnie would do a lot better on a tennis court than Federer would do on a snooker table.


Is an interesting point. Given six months, with a top coach, who would be better at their respective sports?

Desire is key though


So, you're asking all things being equal, both given six months with the best coaching possible, who would be better? Federer at snooker or Ronnie at tennis?

It'd be a hard one to judge, because I don't expect either of them to be world class in that time. I don't think either would be able to beat even a journey level pro at either sports.

If Ronnie picked up a tennis racquet today with no practice and started playing straight away, I'd say he'd make a better fist of tennis than Roger Federer would of snooker, if he had never played before. I think Ronnie has fitness levels with all his running. That's not to say tennis requires no skill, but snooker is more of a tactical game. A lot of success can only come through experience. Whereas, I can imagine a fairly inexperienced tennis player occasionally fluking the odd point, even if they got comprehensively thrashed.

Re: Once and for all....

Postby SnookerFan

Dan-cat wrote:I think we just hit on a concept for a TV show!



Holden Chinaski wrote:I was thinking that! <ok>


Really?

Watching sports people play other sports badly?

Why would they give up the income of six months of playing a sport at the top level, to demonstrate that they suck at another sport?

Re: Once and for all....

Postby vodkadiet

Federer is far better than O'Sullivan. Why?

He has achieved more in a much more global sport than O'Sullivan.

There is far too much premature talk about O'Sullivan being the 'greatest player ever'.

You need to win the titles that matter to put that issue out of doubt.

Until O'Sullivan has won at least 8 world titles there is still legitimate debate.

Snookeren hates tennis too much to be taken seriously.

Re: Once and for all....

Postby Holden Chinaski

Tennis is for bankers. Ronnie would do better on a tennis court than Federer would on a snooker table. Why don't you join a tennis forum or start a Federer fan club, Vodka... :bird:

Re: Once and for all....

Postby vodkadiet

I am on a tennis forum. Federer is not my favourite player. But Federer has achieved enough to be undoubtedly the 'greatest ever'.

I like both tennis and snooker equally. These are my 2 favourite sports. I was a tennis coach in California for 2 years in the early 90s. Tennis is a massive sport. Far bigger than snooker. You cannot compare the sports.

I have grown to love snooker as much as tennis as I have got older. I want snooker to get more global. It isn't there yet.

One thing I would add to the debate is that luck is far more an important factor in snooker than virtually any other sport.

Re: Once and for all....

Postby SnookerFan

Holden Chinaski wrote:Tennis is for bankers. Ronnie would do better on a tennis court than Federer would on a snooker table. Why don't you join a tennis forum or start a Federer fan club, Vodka... :bird:


:goodpost: :goodpost: :goodpost:

Re: Once and for all....

Postby Cloud Strife

Ronnie is a far nicer and far greater human being than arrogant Federer. I think he's more talented too.