Post a reply

Re: Ronnie O'Sullivan: Snooker's Roger Federer

Postby SnookerFan

SnookerFan wrote:
Iranu wrote:Snookerfan seething


Well, come on.

Snooker is the best spectator sport on the planet.


But even that aside, why do we keep having to compare everybody to Federer or Woods? Some of us don't care about either of those two. Just seems and odd thing to do.

I like horror movies. Should I continually compare the greats of snooker to Robert Englund, who played Freddy Krueger? I mean, hey I like them. So should I assume everybody else who likes snooker wants to make the comparisons?

Re: Ronnie O'Sullivan: Snooker's Roger Federer

Postby The_Abbott

As much as I have the occasional dig at Ronnie when he's moaning about venues or retirement, I do appreciate what he has done for snooker and he is still the most interesting player to watch. He has also helped the longevity of other players.

Federer I think is starting to show signs of wear and tear now. Not yet for Ronnie but probably when he starts getting to 50 and his eyesight plays up.

Re: Ronnie O'Sullivan: Snooker's Roger Federer

Postby SnookerFan

Dan-cat wrote:Er...Tennis and golf are sports SF?


Yeah, but even so.

There does seem to be this opinion that everybody who is a fan of snooker is bumming themselves about Roger Federer. I mean, even when Ronnie won the UK last year Hazel ran out and starting chatting about Federer and Woods saying; "These are the numbers that matter". Ronnie had just set a record, Federer's tennis tally didn't matter at all.

It just seems snooker has an inferiority complex somehow, the amount we try to compare it to other sports. It's like snooker is constantly saying tennis is cooler, so let's compare it to that.

When Federer wins a Grand Slam, do they run out and start talking about the amount of ranking events Ronnie has won and say; "These are the numbers that matter"?

I get that they are massively successful sportsmen, but so was Muhammad Ali. Why not bring him up every time Ronnie wins a tournament?

I'm not saying NEVER mention Federer. But it seems to happen far more than it's relevant to do.

Re: Ronnie O'Sullivan: Snooker's Roger Federer

Postby Dan-cat

Snooker is inferior, in terms of viewers/fans. It isn't a complex. I think Ronnie answers your question in the article...

'Where O’Sullivan doesn’t compare is prize money. His career earnings from snooker sit at £10.9m – a remarkable sum, but one that is dwarfed by Federer’s £103.5m and Woods’ £118.7m.

“Tennis, golf, F1 and football are global sports,” says O’Sullivan. “I’m not stupid, they look totally glamorous.

“Snooker’s appeal is not as great. I get it, but you make the best of what you can do.”

Re: Ronnie O'Sullivan: Snooker's Roger Federer

Postby SnookerFan

Dan-cat wrote:Snooker is inferior, in terms of viewers/fans. It isn't a complex. I think Ronnie answers your question in the article...

'Where O’Sullivan doesn’t compare is prize money. His career earnings from snooker sit at £10.9m – a remarkable sum, but one that is dwarfed by Federer’s £103.5m and Woods’ £118.7m.

“Tennis, golf, F1 and football are global sports,” says O’Sullivan. “I’m not stupid, they look totally glamorous.

“Snooker’s appeal is not as great. I get it, but you make the best of what you can do.”


Fair point, I suppose. I'm not claiming tennis isn't more globally popular, that would be stupid.

But I don't think having presenters currently spunk themselves about how brilliant Federer is when they should be interviewing a snooker player or analysing a frame helps much. Nothing against this artcle per se, it's more when it happens on commentary. We can see how awesome Ronnie is as a snooker player without going; "Look he's cool like Federer and Woods, isn't he? Isn't he?"

Even Jimmy White has been known to call Ronnie "Roger" on TV, due to him being as good as Federer. :zzz:

Re: Ronnie O'Sullivan: Snooker's Roger Federer

Postby Dan-cat

Well they are comparing excellence. It's not that much of stretch, it's always happened.

And no, McEnroe in the comms box is never gonna mention Ronnie O'Sullivan, because I doubt he, or many of the viewers of tennis (outside the UK) will have heard of him.

Re: Ronnie O'Sullivan: Snooker's Roger Federer

Postby Iranu

I think you’re making it out to be worse than it is, SF.

Firstly as Dan says, tennis and golf are more popular, so more people know about their stars than snooker’s.

For anyone new watching the sport, it’s probably not a bad thing to say “this snooker player you haven’t heard of is equivalent to this tennis star that you probably have.”

I do think there’s an element of inferiority complex like you say, but I would point out that other sports’ stars get compared to other sports all the time. Also that just because you’re not interested in tennis or golf that doesn’t mean other viewers won’t find value in the comparison.

Boxing is probably the most common, it gets referenced and compared to in other sports coverage constantly.

Re: Ronnie O'Sullivan: Snooker's Roger Federer

Postby SnookerFan

Iranu wrote:I think you’re making it out to be worse than it is, SF.

Firstly as Dan says, tennis and golf are more popular, so more people know about their stars than snooker’s.

For anyone new watching the sport, it’s probably not a bad thing to say “this snooker player you haven’t heard of is equivalent to this tennis star that you probably have.”

I do think there’s an element of inferiority complex like you say, but I would point out that other sports’ stars get compared to other sports all the time. Also that just because you’re not interested in tennis or golf that doesn’t mean other viewers won’t find value in the comparison.

Boxing is probably the most common, it gets referenced and compared to in other sports coverage constantly.


It does, and I find that to be slightly annoying too. Mainly because the people do it never seem to have any knowledge about boxing, so their comparisons often don't make sense. <laugh> Not every sporting event is 'like a prizefight' as people often claim.

I probably am making it out to be worse than it is. But it just really annoys me.

To be fair, I think the worst offenders are the BBC. And they're aimed more at casual fans, like you say. Ronnie brings Federer up a lot, but he's one person. And annoying though I find it, I guess he's allowed to bring up other sportsmen he admires.

As usual I'm in a minority. And the tennis comparisons are usually lost on me, because I know next to nothing about it. So it often confuses the point they are trying to make to me.

I was only really mentioning because of Iranu's joke. Should've just said 'STFU Iranu'. <ok>

I will say, the odd reference or comparison is fine. But it's like Dennis Taylor boring on about golf. I don't need it constantly.

Re: Ronnie O'Sullivan: Snooker's Roger Federer

Postby SnookerFan

Also, I'm not attacking the article here in any way. Ronnie is discussing what it's like to be compared to them. Which he often is. So he's just commenting on something that happens.

Re: Ronnie O'Sullivan: Snooker's Roger Federer

Postby Dan-cat

Wildey wrote:Roger Federer is nothing at all like Ronnie .


Roger is the ultimate Pro and Ronnie well.....


Haha it's true, you don't catch Fed moaning about venues etc. However, as there is more money in tennis, and therefore more money spent on producing the events... maybe there isn't a lot to moan about. I dunno though, I don't follow tennis closely.

Re: Ronnie O'Sullivan: Snooker's Roger Federer

Postby Wildey

Dan-cat wrote:
Wildey wrote:Roger Federer is nothing at all like Ronnie .


Roger is the ultimate Pro and Ronnie well.....


Haha it's true, you don't catch Fed moaning about venues etc. However, as there is more money in tennis, and therefore more money spent on producing the events... maybe there isn't a lot to moan about. I dunno though, I don't follow tennis closely.

Yea theres a lot more Money in Tennis but Ronnie doing ok out of it hes not on the breadline and if hes strapped for Cash get on the phone Organize a Exhibition and it would be a license to make money and yet nobody moans or complains about things like he does.

He complains there's no Practice tables at 128 events which im sure hes right and then when asked about practice he says he doesn't do much practice so he is coming across contradicting everything he says.

Re: Ronnie O'Sullivan: Snooker's Roger Federer

Postby Iranu

Wildey wrote:
Dan-cat wrote:
Wildey wrote:Roger Federer is nothing at all like Ronnie .


Roger is the ultimate Pro and Ronnie well.....


Haha it's true, you don't catch Fed moaning about venues etc. However, as there is more money in tennis, and therefore more money spent on producing the events... maybe there isn't a lot to moan about. I dunno though, I don't follow tennis closely.

Yea theres a lot more Money in Tennis but Ronnie doing ok out of it hes not on the breadline and if hes strapped for Cash get on the phone Organize a Exhibition and it would be a license to make money and yet nobody moans or complains about things like he does.

He complains there's no Practice tables at 128 events which im sure hes right and then when asked about practice he says he doesn't do much practice so he is coming across contradicting everything he says.

Well to be fair he says he doesn’t practise much in the early stages of 128 events because he doesn’t get enough time plus it’s too busy for him to focus properly.

Whether he practises when not at tournaments is irrelevant, really. There should be facilities for players to get a decent amount of practise is before matches at any stage of any event.

He is often contradictory though.

Re: Ronnie O'Sullivan: Snooker's Roger Federer

Postby Iranu

Oh, and tennis players including Federer do moan about things. Maybe not facilities but scheduling, prize money, even practice court availability.

Re: Ronnie O'Sullivan: Snooker's Roger Federer

Postby Wildey

Iranu wrote:Oh, and tennis players including Federer do moan about things. Maybe not facilities but scheduling, prize money, even practice court availability.

OMG they are alike after all and it just highlights every pro sport is the same.

Re: Ronnie O'Sullivan: Snooker's Roger Federer

Postby Andre147

Federer is the ultimate pro, very rarely does something bad.

O'Sullivan on the other hand is a genius, and like all geniuses sometimes doesn't behave properly or is misunderstood.

Re: Ronnie O'Sullivan: Snooker's Roger Federer

Postby Badsnookerplayer

Andre147 wrote:Federer is the ultimate pro, very rarely does something bad.

O'Sullivan on the other hand is a genius, and like all geniuses sometimes doesn't behave properly or is misunderstood.

Personally I would dispute that he is a genius but rather an exceptional exponent of the game with a lot of flair. IMO a genius redefines a sport or art or science and leaves it in a different state to before. Changes the way it is played for future generations. I don't think Ronnie has done that.

Genius would imply he can do something that others can't but I think there are other players who can play any shot that he can.

I don't think snooker has had a genius. Just my thought.

Re: Ronnie O'Sullivan: Snooker's Roger Federer

Postby Iranu

Andre147 wrote:Federer is the ultimate pro, very rarely does something bad.

O'Sullivan on the other hand is a genius, and like all geniuses sometimes doesn't behave properly or is misunderstood.

I think this is a dangerous precedent and risks giving so-called geniuses carte blanche to act like awful people because “it’s just part of who they are.”

Re: Ronnie O'Sullivan: Snooker's Roger Federer

Postby Andre147

Badsnookerplayer wrote:
Andre147 wrote:Federer is the ultimate pro, very rarely does something bad.

O'Sullivan on the other hand is a genius, and like all geniuses sometimes doesn't behave properly or is misunderstood.

Personally I would dispute that he is a genius but rather an exceptional exponent of the game with a lot of flair. IMO a genius redefines a sport or art or science and leaves it in a different state to before. Changes the way it is played for future generations. I don't think Ronnie has done that.

Genius would imply he can do something that others can't but I think there are other players who can play any shot that he can.

I don't think snooker has had a genius. Just my thought.


O'Sullivan definately changed the way Snooker is played, much like Stephen Hendry and Steve Davis before him.

Re: Ronnie O'Sullivan: Snooker's Roger Federer

Postby Cloud Strife

Iranu wrote:
Andre147 wrote:Federer is the ultimate pro, very rarely does something bad.

O'Sullivan on the other hand is a genius, and like all geniuses sometimes doesn't behave properly or is misunderstood.

I think this is a dangerous precedent and risks giving so-called geniuses carte blanche to act like awful people because “it’s just part of who they are.”


I don't know about carte blanche, but I do believe "geniuses" should be given some extra room to manoeuvre when it comes to their conduct. They are not like normal people, so it's abit difficult to try and hold them to the same standards.


   

cron