Post a reply

Best Potter Ever

Mark J Williams
2
20%
Stephen Hendry
2
20%
Neil Robertson
0
No votes
Ronnie O'Sullivan
6
60%
Judd Trump
0
No votes
Stephen Lee
0
No votes
Jimmy White
0
No votes
Shaun Murphy
0
No votes
Ding Junhui
0
No votes
Other (please State)
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 10

Re: Best Potter Ever

Postby Rocket_ron

Witz78 wrote:point is though whenever theres a GOAT debate it seems to be exclusively be between the recent big 4.

Joe Davis, Fred Davis overlooked simply because there from an old era

then likes of Higgins, Reardon, Steve Davis overlooked because there not from the recent era.

if you ask a load of people in 10 years who the GOAT is the main contenders could be Judd and Ding with some token mentions for Higgins and Ronnie

worth of RT

Re: Best Potter Ever

Postby Wildey

Rocket_ron wrote:anyway I didn't intend this thread to turn into a GOAT debate

dont worry it hasent <ok>

Re: Best Potter Ever

Postby GJ

<cool>

Re: Best Potter Ever

Postby Witz78

Wild wrote:
Rocket_ron wrote:anyway I didn't intend this thread to turn into a GOAT debate

dont worry it hasent <ok>


yeh dont worry Rocket Ron <ok>

no such thing as a GOAT debate anway :no:

introducing your 15X WC :bowdown:

Image

Re: Best Potter Ever

Postby Skullman

Witz78 wrote:
Wild wrote:
Rocket_ron wrote:anyway I didn't intend this thread to turn into a GOAT debate

dont worry it hasent <ok>


yeh dont worry Rocket Ron <ok>

no such thing as a GOAT debate anway :no:

introducing your 15X WC :bowdown:

Image


When did Bingham get his hair cut? Suits him.

Re: Best Potter Ever

Postby Sickpotter

Witz78 wrote:
Skullman wrote:
Witz78 wrote:point is though whenever theres a GOAT debate it seems to be exclusively be between the recent big 4.

Joe Davis, Fred Davis overlooked simply because there from an old era

then likes of Higgins, Reardon, Steve Davis overlooked because there not from the recent era.

if you ask a load of people in 10 years who the GOAT is the main contenders could be Judd and Ding with some token mentions for Higgins and Ronnie


True, if it was based on results, it would have to be Joe Davis. It always suprised me that Davis (Steve that is) or Reardon are never considered potential GOATs.


always makes me laugh if theres a Hendry v somone debate, the Hendry fans just pipe up with "7 world titles, end of debate" then if you counter it with "Joe Davis 15, Fred Davis 8" they suddnely move the goalposts :fart:


Funny...always makes me laugh when someone wants to suggest challenge based, single oppenent match titles as being equivalent to those earned playing multiple opponents. :john:

Re: Best Potter Ever

Postby Witz78

Sickpotter wrote:
Witz78 wrote:
Skullman wrote:
Witz78 wrote:point is though whenever theres a GOAT debate it seems to be exclusively be between the recent big 4.

Joe Davis, Fred Davis overlooked simply because there from an old era

then likes of Higgins, Reardon, Steve Davis overlooked because there not from the recent era.

if you ask a load of people in 10 years who the GOAT is the main contenders could be Judd and Ding with some token mentions for Higgins and Ronnie


True, if it was based on results, it would have to be Joe Davis. It always suprised me that Davis (Steve that is) or Reardon are never considered potential GOATs.


always makes me laugh if theres a Hendry v somone debate, the Hendry fans just pipe up with "7 world titles, end of debate" then if you counter it with "Joe Davis 15, Fred Davis 8" they suddnely move the goalposts :fart:


Funny...always makes me laugh when someone wants to suggest challenge based, single oppenent match titles as being equivalent to those earned playing multiple opponents. :john:


at least get your facts right mate

PLAYERS COMPETING IN WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP

1927 - 10
1928 - 7
1929 - 5
1930 - 5
1931 - 2
1932 - 3
1933 - 5
1934 - 2
1935 - 5
1936 - 10
1937 - 9
1938 - 8
1939 - 16
1940 - 9
1946 - 14

the bulk of Davis's wins were in proper tournaments so i think your getting mixed up with John Pulman in the 1960s who played challenge matches.

for the record in the 1946 final Joe Davis made 6 centuries including a 136. He was no mug as is well worthy of an inclusion among any GOAT debate.

look at this for evidence :bowdown:



and heres a wonderful interview with Joe and Bruce Forsyth which proves hes the GOAT <ok>

Re: Best Potter Ever

Postby Roland

That must be the "watch me I'll show you" method of coaching :redneck:

Re: Best Potter Ever

Postby Witz78

Sonny wrote:That must be the "watch me I'll show you" method of coaching :redneck:


to be fair to Brucie he did give Joe a good game, good game :hatoff:

Re: Best Potter Ever

Postby Sickpotter

Witz78 wrote:
Sickpotter wrote:
Witz78 wrote:
Skullman wrote:
Witz78 wrote:point is though whenever theres a GOAT debate it seems to be exclusively be between the recent big 4.

Joe Davis, Fred Davis overlooked simply because there from an old era

then likes of Higgins, Reardon, Steve Davis overlooked because there not from the recent era.

if you ask a load of people in 10 years who the GOAT is the main contenders could be Judd and Ding with some token mentions for Higgins and Ronnie


True, if it was based on results, it would have to be Joe Davis. It always suprised me that Davis (Steve that is) or Reardon are never considered potential GOATs.


always makes me laugh if theres a Hendry v somone debate, the Hendry fans just pipe up with "7 world titles, end of debate" then if you counter it with "Joe Davis 15, Fred Davis 8" they suddnely move the goalposts :fart:


Funny...always makes me laugh when someone wants to suggest challenge based, single oppenent match titles as being equivalent to those earned playing multiple opponents. :john:


at least get your facts right mate

PLAYERS COMPETING IN WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP

1927 - 10
1928 - 7
1929 - 5
1930 - 5
1931 - 2
1932 - 3
1933 - 5
1934 - 2
1935 - 5
1936 - 10
1937 - 9
1938 - 8
1939 - 16
1940 - 9
1946 - 14

the bulk of Davis's wins were in proper tournaments so i think your getting mixed up with John Pulman in the 1960s who played challenge matches.

for the record in the 1946 final Joe Davis made 6 centuries including a 136. He was no mug as is well worthy of an inclusion among any GOAT debate.

look at this for evidence :bowdown:



and heres a wonderful interview with Joe and Bruce Forsyth which proves hes the GOAT <ok>



Ok, perhaps I've stated the issue with Joe's titles incorrectly but you can't deny that the tiny fields are of significance. At best he had to play 4 rounds, only 4 times was there a double digit field and never exceeding 16 players. Also of significance is that Joe got to pick and choose who was a member of the professional tour. Quite a bit was made of him blacklisting players whom he couldn't beat. All of these factors make it difficult to give his titles the same validity of those obtained in the modern game.

Don't get me wrong, I do believe Joe to be an all time great and a pioneer in the sport, I just don't believe his titles to be equal to those obtained in the modern game <ok>

1946 - 6 centuries including a 136....nice number of tons until one realizes that this final was a best of 145 frames. ;-)

No time to dig up the stats, do you happen to have a list of how many competed for the WC when Hendry won his titles? I guarantee the field was never less than double Joe's best turnout and he didn't get to pick and choose who was allowed to play.

Re: Best Potter Ever

Postby Roland

Field sizes don't really matter here, when Hendry was starting out snooker was on television all the time and had been for years so there were hundreds of thousands more youngsters taking up the game. Joe Davis is the godfather of snooker though, can't take anything away from his achievements but Hendry's are better, no doubt about it.

Re: Best Potter Ever

Postby Witz78

Joe Davis won his titles in a stronger era than Hendry did :D

he did have the likes of Walter Donaldson, his brother Fred Davis, John Pulman among his challengers so its harsh to say hed no proper competition.

Re: Best Potter Ever

Postby Sickpotter

No one suggesting he didn't have good competition, just that there wasn't much of it.

I almost spewed my coffee out my nose when you said the majority of Joe's wins were in proper events.

I have a hard time considering an event with only 16 people "proper".....more like a weekly club competition

Re: Best Potter Ever

Postby Witz78

Sickpotter wrote:No one suggesting he didn't have good competition, just that there wasn't much of it.

I almost spewed my coffee out my nose when you said the majority of Joe's wins were in proper events.

I have a hard time considering an event with only 16 people "proper".....more like a weekly club competition


well by that token, todays snooker aint PROPER either then is it

look at the top 16 for starters. half a dozen frauds in it who arent worthy (you know who they are)

below that you have 30 or 40 deadwood journeymen

and below that a load of youngsters who arent ready

so bar the usual TEN suspects at events, theres no other competition

and dont counter with the shock results weve seen in China this week cos thats just down to World Snooker cocking up the ranking cut offs, so most folk aint even taking this event seriously as they are already more focused on Sheffield <doh>

Re: Best Potter Ever

Postby Sickpotter

So in your opinion no players barring 10 of the current top 16 are comperable quality wise to those faced by Joe?

Joe managed 6 tons in his 1946 final....a final that was a best of 145 frames. That works out to less than one ton every 10 frames or so. You really think today's pros can't manage better than that? rofl

I seem to recall the modern day ton record for a final is held by Hendry...7 tons in a best of 19. :mosh2:

I think you missed your calling Witz, comedian would've been the way to go ;-)

Re: Best Potter Ever

Postby GJ

Sickpotter wrote:So in your opinion no players barring 10 of the current top 16 are comperable quality wise to those faced by Joe?

Joe managed 6 tons in his 1946 final....a final that was a best of 145 frames. That works out to less than one ton every 10 frames or so. You really think today's pros can't manage better than that? rofl

I think you missed your calling Witz, comedian would've been the way to go ;-)



rofl :hatoff:

Re: Best Potter Ever

Postby Witz78

Muppet147 wrote:Today's conditions are far more favourable for making centuries.


:hatoff:

well said Muppet

also if were using Sickpotters centuries as the barometer of GOAT-ness then Ronnies total per season is greater then Hendrys :hmmm:

Re: Best Potter Ever

Postby Wildey

Witz78 wrote:Joe Davis won his titles in a stronger era than Hendry did :D

he did have the likes of Walter Donaldson, his brother Fred Davis, John Pulman among his challengers so its harsh to say hed no proper competition.

yup jimmy white and Steve Davis was marmite wasent they <ok>

Re: Best Potter Ever

Postby Sickpotter

Witz78 wrote:
Muppet147 wrote:Today's conditions are far more favourable for making centuries.


:hatoff:

well said Muppet

also if were using Sickpotters centuries as the barometer of GOAT-ness then Ronnies total per season is greater then Hendrys :hmmm:


True enough tons are easier to come by these days, not going to debate that.

I never suggested tons as the barometer of GOAT-ness, I just noted that you pointed out Joe's "great" 6 tons in a final, (like this is some great acheivement) while ignoring the number of frames invovled and ignoring that far better records exist over less frames.

Witz all your jumping around to various points changes nothing.

No rational person thinks that titles earned pre-modern day era are as great an accomplishment as those won in the modern era.

No pro or commentator has ever suggested the titles are comperable.

No rational person suggests that playing 3 matches to win a title is just as difficult as playing 6 or more.

No rational person suggests that a field hand picked by one player and consisting of no more than 16 players is harder to navigate than a field of 128.

The eras involved just aren't comperable and you know it, you're not that irrational.

The "titles is everything" position is based on events with comperable formats and fields which leaves Joe's titles in another era and unusable for comparison.

Re: Best Potter Ever

Postby Witz78

Sickpotter wrote:
Witz78 wrote:
Muppet147 wrote:Today's conditions are far more favourable for making centuries.


:hatoff:

well said Muppet

also if were using Sickpotters centuries as the barometer of GOAT-ness then Ronnies total per season is greater then Hendrys :hmmm:


True enough tons are easier to come by these days, not going to debate that.

I never suggested tons as the barometer of GOAT-ness, I just noted that you pointed out Joe's "great" 6 tons in a final, (like this is some great acheivement) while ignoring the number of frames invovled and ignoring that far better records exist over less frames.

Witz all your jumping around to various points changes nothing.

No rational person thinks that titles earned pre-modern day era are as great an accomplishment as those won in the modern era.

No pro or commentator has ever suggested the titles are comperable.

No rational person suggests that playing 3 matches to win a title is just as difficult as playing 6 or more. 5 max for seeds these days plus Hendry admitted hed a bye to the Quarters in his day so hed 3 matches just like Joe Davis

No rational person suggests that a field hand picked by one player and consisting of no more than 16 players is harder to navigate than a field of 128. Field of 32 players for the seeds to negotiate

The eras involved just aren't comperable and you know it, you're not that irrational. in that case no era is comparable

The "titles is everything" position is based on events with comperable formats and fields which leaves Joe's titles in another era and unusable for comparison. id argue the modern era titles arent comparable with Joes <ok>

Re: Best Potter Ever

Postby Sickpotter

No era that involves different sized fields or formats is comperable...no question.

By all means, argue away that modern era titles aren't comperable with Joe's but you're only arguing with yourself, I've stated they're not comperable.

If you believe Joe's era had a stronger field you are just plain delusional and should seek professional help.

I don't mind a good debate but quite frankly Witz this is a load of bull....what gives? :shrug:

Re: Best Potter Ever

Postby Witz78

Sickpotter wrote:No era that involves different sized fields or formats is comperable...no question.

By all means, argue away that modern era titles aren't comperable with Joe's but you're only arguing with yourself, I've stated they're not comperable.

If you believe Joe's era had a stronger field you are just plain delusional and should seek professional help.

I don't mind a good debate but quite frankly Witz this is a load of bull....what gives? :shrug:


never claimed it had a stronger field

just said in the Joe Davis era at least we had an honest Scottish player and an Aussie who played the game in the proper way <ok>

Re: Best Potter Ever

Postby Sickpotter

:fart:

Sorry but that's as good a response as that statement deserves. :roll:

Re: Best Potter Ever

Postby Roland

Sickpotter is the best potter

Re: Best Potter Ever

Postby Wildey

Sickpotter wrote: :fart:

Sorry but that's as good a response as that statement deserves. :roll:

i guess when i say hes full of rubbish it equates to the same thing <laugh>