Post a reply

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

Postby Holden Chinaski

John Spencer was also a very important game-changer that gets too little credit. Just like Ronnie seems to be getting too little credit... John Spencer was already developing the long pots with the screw back and side spin and stuff.

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

Postby Iranu

Holden Chinaski wrote:John Spencer was also a very important game-changer that gets too little credit. Just like Ronnie seems to be getting too little credit... John Spencer was already developing the long pots with the screw back and side spin and stuff.

True. If we extend the list to anyone who changed anything about the game it would be very long.

One name that deserves to be mentioned is James Wattana. You could argue he’s responsible for a new continent of pros.

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

Postby Holden Chinaski

Wildey wrote:
Alex Higgins brought a eliment of excitement that was never seen before


Steve Davis brought the professionalism and dedication that today's players still aspire to play with


Stephen Hendry brought in a aggressive way to play to win frames from the first pot never seen before but plenty since.

Alex Higgins took what John Spencer was doing and made it more exciting.

Steve Davis took the professionalism and dedication of Ray Reardon and ran with it.
Stephen Hendry took what Jimmy White was doing and made it better.

Ronnie took what all those guys were doing and developed it further.

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

Postby Holden Chinaski

Iranu wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:John Spencer was also a very important game-changer that gets too little credit. Just like Ronnie seems to be getting too little credit... John Spencer was already developing the long pots with the screw back and side spin and stuff.

True. If we extend the list to anyone who changed anything about the game it would be very long.

One name that deserves to be mentioned is James Wattana. You could argue he’s responsible for a new continent of pros.

John Spencer was revolutionary for the game. Wattana was not. It's easy to see why Ronnie and Spencer changed the game and Wattana did not.

If Alex Higgins plays exciting stuff you call him a game changer. If I say Spencer was also doig it before Alex, then all of the sudden it's not worth anything.. I can't win here.

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

Postby Holden Chinaski

Iranu wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:John Spencer was also a very important game-changer that gets too little credit. Just like Ronnie seems to be getting too little credit... John Spencer was already developing the long pots with the screw back and side spin and stuff.

True. If we extend the list to anyone who changed anything about the game it would be very long.

One name that deserves to be mentioned is James Wattana. You could argue he’s responsible for a new continent of pros.

Spencer won 3 World Titles. Alex Higgins said at the time Spencer was a breath of fresh air. A new style... How many World Titles does Wattana have? It's not the same is it...

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

Postby Iranu

Holden Chinaski wrote:
Iranu wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:John Spencer was also a very important game-changer that gets too little credit. Just like Ronnie seems to be getting too little credit... John Spencer was already developing the long pots with the screw back and side spin and stuff.

True. If we extend the list to anyone who changed anything about the game it would be very long.

One name that deserves to be mentioned is James Wattana. You could argue he’s responsible for a new continent of pros.

Spencer won 3 World Titles. Alex Higgins said at the time Spencer was a breath of fresh air. A new style... How many World Titles does Wattana have? It's not the same is it...

... I wasn’t arguing with you.

Just thought Wattana should be mentioned.

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

Postby Holden Chinaski

Iranu wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:
Iranu wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:John Spencer was also a very important game-changer that gets too little credit. Just like Ronnie seems to be getting too little credit... John Spencer was already developing the long pots with the screw back and side spin and stuff.

True. If we extend the list to anyone who changed anything about the game it would be very long.

One name that deserves to be mentioned is James Wattana. You could argue he’s responsible for a new continent of pros.

Spencer won 3 World Titles. Alex Higgins said at the time Spencer was a breath of fresh air. A new style... How many World Titles does Wattana have? It's not the same is it...

... I wasn’t arguing with you.

Just thought Wattana should be mentioned.

Oh sorry. But we're talking about the way the game is played.

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

Postby Ck147

Ronnie hasn't changed the way the game is played. He plays in his own way that was influenced by previous players but he has a natural talent that most can't match.

A game changer is someone who fundamentally changes how the game is played for the majority of players by introducing a new style of play that dominates initially as other players haven't come up against it before, Davis and Hendry being prime examples.

How the game is viewed from the outside because a particular player made it popular due to playing style or expanding in a new region doesn't make them a changer of the game.

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

Postby Holden Chinaski

Ck147 wrote:Ronnie hasn't changed the way the game is played. He plays in his own way that was influenced by previous players but he has a natural talent that most can't match.

A game changer is someone who fundamentally changes how the game is played for the majority of players by introducing a new style of play that dominates initially as other players haven't come up against it before, Davis and Hendry being prime examples.

How the game is viewed from the outside because a particular player made it popular due to playing style or expanding in a new region doesn't make them a changer of the game.

In my opinion Davis and Hendry did not invent something new. They took what people before them were doing, Reardon and White in this case, and improved it. Just like Ronnie did.

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

Postby Badsnookerplayer

Ck147 wrote:Ronnie hasn't changed the way the game is played. He plays in his own way that was influenced by previous players but he has a natural talent that most can't match.

A game changer is someone who fundamentally changes how the game is played for the majority of players by introducing a new style of play that dominates initially as other players haven't come up against it before, Davis and Hendry being prime examples.

How the game is viewed from the outside because a particular player made it popular due to playing style or expanding in a new region doesn't make them a changer of the game.

I think you put that well -better than I could.

And precisely the reason Davis & Hendry were real game changers.

Good post CK

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

Postby Badsnookerplayer

Dan-cat wrote:Ronnie invented that shot to split the pack off a bottom red, staying on the black.

He is very good at it (as are others) but cannons like that were being played as early as the sixties..

However, he may have invented shots.

That is not the same as changing the way the game is played.

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

Postby Ck147

Holden Chinaski wrote:
Ck147 wrote:Ronnie hasn't changed the way the game is played. He plays in his own way that was influenced by previous players but he has a natural talent that most can't match.

A game changer is someone who fundamentally changes how the game is played for the majority of players by introducing a new style of play that dominates initially as other players haven't come up against it before, Davis and Hendry being prime examples.

How the game is viewed from the outside because a particular player made it popular due to playing style or expanding in a new region doesn't make them a changer of the game.

In my opinion Davis and Hendry did not invent something new. They took what people before them were doing, Reardon and White in this case, and improved it. Just like Ronnie did.

Davis and Hendry did something new, that's why they dominated for a decade each, other players hadn't seen it before and couldn't compete. If it had been done before how come other players weren't adapting their games at the same time to compete? It was only Davis and Hendry who could do that in their respective era's, that says "game changers" to me.

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

Postby Iranu

Holden Chinaski wrote:
Ck147 wrote:Ronnie hasn't changed the way the game is played. He plays in his own way that was influenced by previous players but he has a natural talent that most can't match.

A game changer is someone who fundamentally changes how the game is played for the majority of players by introducing a new style of play that dominates initially as other players haven't come up against it before, Davis and Hendry being prime examples.

How the game is viewed from the outside because a particular player made it popular due to playing style or expanding in a new region doesn't make them a changer of the game.

In my opinion Davis and Hendry did not invent something new. They took what people before them were doing, Reardon and White in this case, and improved it. Just like Ronnie did.

Davis’s professionalism was a class above Reardon’s and influenced how professional the players were coming after him. Not just one or two like Reardon, but the entire professional tour. By the 80s Reardon had already been top of the sport for a decade, but it hadn’t really changed in terms of players’ outlooks.

Same with Hendry. White played attacking snooker, but it was Hendry combining that attacking snooker with enormous success that changed almost all players’ approach to the game. White influenced Hendry, sure. But Hendry influenced everyone, even players that had come before him like White and Davis.

I think you’re giving a bit too much credit to Ronnie for current players’ attacking/safety prowess. As I said before, most top players were already doing this before Ronnie decided to work with Reardon. He was just better at it than them once he started doing it. Of course he has players trying to emulate him in certain ways, but Mark Selby for example would still play the same way if he had only Davis and Hendry to look at growing up. That’s not to say he hasn’t learned from Ronnie.

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

Postby Ck147

Dan-cat wrote:He raised the standard of positional play.

Still not the same as changing the game

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

Postby Iranu

Dan-cat wrote:He raised the standard of positional play.

Did he? Of the current players only Higgins and Ding come to mind as comparable to Ronnie in terms of positional play.

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

Postby Ck147

Iranu wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:
Ck147 wrote:Ronnie hasn't changed the way the game is played. He plays in his own way that was influenced by previous players but he has a natural talent that most can't match.

A game changer is someone who fundamentally changes how the game is played for the majority of players by introducing a new style of play that dominates initially as other players haven't come up against it before, Davis and Hendry being prime examples.

How the game is viewed from the outside because a particular player made it popular due to playing style or expanding in a new region doesn't make them a changer of the game.

In my opinion Davis and Hendry did not invent something new. They took what people before them were doing, Reardon and White in this case, and improved it. Just like Ronnie did.

Davis’s professionalism was a class above Reardon’s and influenced how professional the players were coming after him. Not just one or two like Reardon, but the entire professional tour. By the 80s Reardon had already been top of the sport for a decade, but it hadn’t really changed in terms of players’ outlooks.

Same with Hendry. White played attacking snooker, but it was Hendry combining that attacking snooker with enormous success that changed almost all players’ approach to the game. White influenced Hendry, sure. But Hendry influenced everyone, even players that had come before him like White and Davis.

I think you’re giving a bit too much credit to Ronnie for current players’ attacking/safety prowess. As I said before, most top players were already doing this before Ronnie decided to work with Reardon. He was just better at it than them once he started doing it. Of course he has players trying to emulate him in certain ways, but Mark Selby for example would still play the same way if he had only Davis and Hendry to look at growing up. That’s not to say he hasn’t learned from Ronnie.

Like that, good post Iranu

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

Postby sas6789

Iranu wrote:
Dan-cat wrote:He raised the standard of positional play.

Did he? Of the current players only Higgins and Ding come to mind as comparable to Ronnie in terms of positional play.

And Hendry's positional play was pretty imaculate even before O'Sullivan came along.

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

Postby Badsnookerplayer

sas6789 wrote:
Iranu wrote:
Dan-cat wrote:He raised the standard of positional play.

Did he? Of the current players only Higgins and Ding come to mind as comparable to Ronnie in terms of positional play.

And Hendry's positional play was pretty imaculate even before O'Sullivan came along.

Some would even argue that Hendry was a superior positional player to O'Sullivan

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

Postby Andre147

Badsnookerplayer wrote:
sas6789 wrote:
Iranu wrote:
Dan-cat wrote:He raised the standard of positional play.

Did he? Of the current players only Higgins and Ding come to mind as comparable to Ronnie in terms of positional play.

And Hendry's positional play was pretty imaculate even before O'Sullivan came along.

Some would even argue that Hendry was a superior positional player to O'Sullivan


ROS plays more clever cannons though, same with Ding.

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

Postby Badsnookerplayer

Andre147 wrote:
Badsnookerplayer wrote:
sas6789 wrote:
Iranu wrote:
Dan-cat wrote:He raised the standard of positional play.

Did he? Of the current players only Higgins and Ding come to mind as comparable to Ronnie in terms of positional play.

And Hendry's positional play was pretty imaculate even before O'Sullivan came along.

Some would even argue that Hendry was a superior positional player to O'Sullivan


ROS plays more clever cannons though, same with Ding.

In your opinion. Mark Williams is the best at neat cannons for me.

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

Postby Ck147

Andre147 wrote:
Badsnookerplayer wrote:
sas6789 wrote:
Iranu wrote:
Dan-cat wrote:He raised the standard of positional play.

Did he? Of the current players only Higgins and Ding come to mind as comparable to Ronnie in terms of positional play.

And Hendry's positional play was pretty imaculate even before O'Sullivan came along.

Some would even argue that Hendry was a superior positional player to O'Sullivan


ROS plays more clever cannons though, same with Ding.

Still not game changing. Not hearing any real arguments beyond Davis and Hendry being game changers since the 80/90's. Can we move on? UK about to start, think we should focus on that :-)

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

Postby Badsnookerplayer

Holden Chinaski wrote:John Spencer was also a very important game-changer that gets too little credit. Just like Ronnie seems to be getting too little credit... John Spencer was already developing the long pots with the screw back and side spin and stuff.

Ronnie invented screw shots

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

Postby Badsnookerplayer

Ronnie's contribution to nuclear physics has been missed here. A bit OT but when Einstein was struggling with the explanation of the photoelectric effect, it was Ronnie who explained that atoms could be explained as a wave and also viewed as a particle.

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

Postby Ck147

Badsnookerplayer wrote:All agreed? - Ronnie did buck all for the game.

Personally, I think that is a little harsh but I am willing to agree in order to avoid further arguments

Agreed, let's move on for now, doesn't do anyone any good carrying on like this. We can start it up again at the end of the UKC. Maybe Judd will have changed the game by then and give us more to consider?

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

Postby Ck147

Badsnookerplayer wrote:Ronnie's contribution to nuclear physics has been missed here. A bit OT but when Einstein was struggling with the explanation of the photoelectric effect, it was Ronnie who explained that atoms could be explained as a wave and also viewed as a particle.

You were doing so well up until then. Ronnie couldn't explain the difference between a piece of chalk and what he picks out of his nose.

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

Postby Andre147

Badsnookerplayer wrote:All agreed? - Ronnie did buck all for the game.

Personally, I think that is a little harsh but I am willing to agree in order to avoid further arguments


Agreed. Ronnie did buck all for the game.

rofl rofl rofl