Post a reply

Hendry or White?

Stephen Hendry
13
62%
Jimmy White
8
38%
 
Total votes : 21

Re: POLL: Who has made a bigger contribution to Snooker?

Postby Wildey

Stephen Hendry was not responsible for bringing professionalism to the sport for years ive said Steve Davis was snookers first real Professional. Stephen Hendry benefited from that blue print and he said as much in the interview on sky other week.

Hendrys Legacy is he changed how players approached a frame before Hendry players use to take the balls that was on and if they had the opportunity they would score a century.

Stephen Hendry would think of a century from the initial red and get in to the pack straight away so the frame would be over before the other guy had a chance hence where the term "one chance snooker" came from and he took breakbuilding to a level it had never reached before personally i think Ronnie has taken breakbuilding one step further. But in terms of how the game is played today by Ronnie, Judd and others the Origins stems from the way Stephen Hendry approached it.

Re: POLL: Who has made a bigger contribution to Snooker?

Postby roy142857

The answer might depend on what you mean by 'contribution to snooker'. At the time of playing, perhaps White has the edge - talent at near genius level plus vulnerability is highly watchable. But for me 'contribution to snooker' has to be something on-going, so -

For all the fun involved in watching him in action, I don't think Jimmy White has made that great a contribution to the way the game was played - in some senses it was a negative contribution as some of the players coming through tried to emulate his fluid break-building style without themselves having the talent to match, and it wasn't a style that could be learnt.

Stephen Hendry changed the way players approached the game, and he was so good at that approach that on form he was nigh-on unbeatable, which frankly wasn't that entertaining (impressive of course). The same applies to him as White in that players who shouldn't try to emulate his style of play try to anyway - the reason Hendry's contribution is much bigger is because it is a style of play that can be worked at and learnt, and players will be trying to emulate it for a good while yet. Most players playing that way don't have Hendry's level of quality and consistency, so we have young players with a decent level of talent trying to be Hendry but who haven't learnt 'snooker smarts' and so get beaten quite often by wily older players, leaving us (and them) wondering 'how did that happen?'

For me, most players should be trying to play a style between that of Hendry and Steve Davis, whilst those with outstanding potting talent should be playing in a style somewhere between Hendry and White (which is where I think O'Sullivan and Trump 'fit').

Re: POLL: Who has made a bigger contribution to Snooker?

Postby Wildey

For me Steve Davis made the Biggest contribution to the way the game is played today because of that professionalism....today most young players spent as much time in the gym as they do on the table when Steve Davis started out players spent their time down the pub and im not just talking about Alex Higgins.

problem today is regarding role models and how players want to play is they just cant play like Ronnie O'Sullivan or Stephen Hendry and like you say they get beat by old wily campaigners too often.....so for me the players they should look to emulate is Steve Davis and John Higgins not Ronnie, Jimmy or Hendry.

Re: POLL: Who has made a bigger contribution to Snooker?

Postby Smart

Wildey wrote:
Smart wrote:emulate Higgo <doh>

why not emulate Joe Jogia at least Jogia was a character <>

you better not insinuate something with that comment <ok>


I'm not insinuating but I would not say to a youngster to emulate John Higgins and I would explain the reason to any young person very clearly and very concisely. I think Joe Jogia has been treated very shabbily.

Joe :hatoff:

Re: POLL: Who has made a bigger contribution to Snooker?

Postby roy142857

The point about John Higgins is a good one, in that any player with a 'B' game that good is going to be a constant threat for wins. What I don't know is whether Higgins deliberately works at his 'B' game, which other players could do too but perhaps don't, or whether it just happens for him ... would be interesting to know (anyone?)

Re: POLL: Who has made a bigger contribution to Snooker?

Postby Roland

His A game is all about stamping all over the match and knocking in a silly amount of century breaks. His B game is also part of his A game, his B game is being able to flick a switch and make the vital clearances when he really needs them no matter what has gone before. I've not seen anyone able to clear the board under pressure as good as Higgins does, not even Hendry.

Re: POLL: Who has made a bigger contribution to Snooker?

Postby SteveJJ

Jewell wrote:Putting all bias aside, I think Hendry's contribution to snooker is pretty negligible.

He played an ultra aggressive, attacking brand of snooker, not that it gained him many fans. In fact his ruthless efficiency was a turn-off for many.

The single-minded determination he displayed was somewhat admirable, but it quite rightly led to calls of him being boring and robotic. A label which he was never able to shed throughout his career.

The numerous titles that Hendry won throughout his career point to a remarkable amount of dedication and professionalism, but in this regard he was not the trendsetter many people mistakenly claim him to be. Steve Davis, a whole generation earlier, was equally as dedicated and professional as Hendry was. If anybody ushered in this new aspect of needing to treat snooker like a full-time job it was Davis NOT Hendry.

TBC...


Well his attacking brand of snooker gained a fan in me when I was just getting interested in snooker as a kid. He made me want to both follow the sport and attempt to play it.

Don't a lot of greats from sport have that single-minded determination/ruthlessness? Isn't that a big part of what makes them a great sportsperson? Wasn't it only boring and robotic to some/you because it was so successful? If he'd won nothing with the same game would we all be having this discussion now? Would he raise your ire so much?

Whether he is unloveable as a person/personality does not detract from his success and achievements. Very much in the same vein that Schumacher, Boycott and Sampras have been described in their pomps as boring, robot-like competitors. It's part jealousy and part boredom hewn from nothing unexpected happening result wise when these dominant forces were at their peaks.

As for legacy - I echo those who say that Hendry made snooker more attack focused and changed the way break building was looked at. Perhaps you could say that the likes of Ronnie have bettered it and been influenced in style of play of Jimmy more than Stephen, but behind the Jimmy like flair and panache of O'Sullivan is the bedrock and foundations of Hendry's game.

Legacy as a person - I think with time people will warm to him more as they have done with Davis, Boycs and perhaps even to Schumacher when he came back to F1. People warm to them when they show signs of vulnerability and or show that they are human and if doing exhibitions/tv works does that, then great. Hendry is already one of the better snooker commentators (that might not be saying much)

Jimmy White's legacy? - attractive snooker a la O'Sullivan/Trump and bottling it a la Matthew Stevens.

Re: POLL: Who has made a bigger contribution to Snooker?

Postby Wildey

Hendry was a pro a Good few years before they started experimenting with super fine cloths best part of 7 years in fact same with the miss rule .

Re: POLL: Who has made a bigger contribution to Snooker?

Postby SnookerFan

I always find polls like this somewhat subjective.

It's clearly not the case that Hendry contributed nothing to snooker (Which I suspect was what certain people on this thread want you to admit.) Anybody who is saying that is just trying to diss him. He set a high standard, that people still try to match to this day.

If we are asking who contributed more to the entertainment factor of the snooker boom in the 1980s and early 1990s that's a different matter. And the answer is kind of both of them.

In their peak Jimmy was more popular with the fans, due to his attacking style, charismatic nature and the fact that he came close-but-not-close enough to the world title. I know people that still swear that Jimmy would've won the world title if he hadn't had to play Hendry so many times in a final. Whether that's true or not is another matter, but you can argue that Hendry helped Jimmy on his way to be the people's champion. I'm not suggesting that Jimmy wasn't popular anyway, because that would be absurd. But Jimmy and Hendry were like Ying and Yang, and a lot of times when people mention Jimmy they mention.

In the 1980s, and maybe into the early 1990s, snooker was a soap opera that capture the imagination of the public. Part of this was due to the diverse mix of personalities. For example Alex Higgins and Steve Davis' battles were made more interesting in the fact you had a robotic winning machine vs flamboyant drunken fan favourite.

For every hero of the people in sport, you need a pantomime villain. Hendry weren't a bad guy, but people liked rooting against him because he always won. And consistently beat White, the popular underdog.

Re: POLL: Who has made a bigger contribution to Snooker?

Postby Alpha

Easy answer this. Yes Davis laid the blueprint for what a modern day professional but Hendry seized it and expanded on it and reaped the rewards. Cold, emotionless and boring and lacking White's swagger he may have been but it'll be Hendry who the next generation will be wishing to be like.

Re: POLL: Who has made a bigger contribution to Snooker?

Postby SnookerFan

Jewell wrote:I think it is fair to say that Hendry's dominance of the sport sort of choked the life out of snooker, to a certain extent.

Despite his dominance, he never pulled in the sponsors, fan interest or media coverage.

It's no coincidence that the sport started to suffer a downturn during Hendry's period of success. I know things came to head in the 2000s, but the rot started to set in on Hendry's watch.

He was a great foil for the likes of Jimmy White and Ronnie O'Sullivan, not much more than that.


Yes, because the sport never had sponsorship problems after Hendry's dominance. <doh>

Re: POLL: Who has made a bigger contribution to Snooker?

Postby Roland

How old are you Jewell? You speak as if you were there when Hendry was dominating but I reckon you weren't even born. You clearly have no understanding of how Hendry changed the game anyway.

Re: POLL: Who has made a bigger contribution to Snooker?

Postby Roland

I thought you were about 18, quite surprised you're 28. Don't agree about Hendry either. Yes it wasn't great watching him win everything if you were a Jimmy fan like I was but it's nonsense to dismiss his impact on the game in the way you have.

Re: POLL: Who has made a bigger contribution to Snooker?

Postby Sickpotter

Hendry had a huge impact on the game, more than White certainly.

Let me ask one question.....how much of the love the general public shows Jimmy is related to his never having won the WC? Everyone likes the underdog.........

White was a more personable player while Hendry was more focused on the business at hand.

Every top player today has their game/playing style based off Hendry. Davis brought in true professionalism to the game, Hendry followed suit and added a far more attacking game. White has an attacking game as well but not one anywhere near as successful/consistent as Hendry.

Honestly, the way you talk about the game sometimes it's hard to peg your age, 12 year olds come out with more well thought out questions.

Sponsorship didn't die with Hendry's rise, in fact the game never saw more money than it did in the 90's. Sponsorship loss in snooker was more related to the global economic meltdown, not Hendry as you suggest.

Re: POLL: Who has made a bigger contribution to Snooker?

Postby SnookerFan

Snooker sponsorhip in the 1980s and 1990s was pretty stable, due to tobacco sponsorship. It was a loophole for tobacco companies to get their name on television. (They weren't allowed to make televised commercials, but were allowed to sponsor televised sporting events.) That's why Benson and Hedges sponsored The Masters for so long, and Embassy sponsored The World Championships for so long. We're talking decades worth of sponsorship here.

When tobacco sponsorship was made illegal, snooker had a few years of scrabbling around to get anybody they could to sponsor tournaments. Even now when all events have a sponsor, Barry Hearn is still quite reliant on the gambling industry.

I'm not entirely sure why there are people that have been watching snooker for more than a couple of years that think this has anything to do with Stephen Hendry.



Ps. I'd love to know how old people think I am. rofl

Re: POLL: Who has made a bigger contribution to Snooker?

Postby Wildey

So Jewell was born when Hendry turned Pro :chin:


so just how exactly do you come anywhere near understanding the impact Hendry has had on snooker while you was in the womb.

Re: POLL: Who has made a bigger contribution to Snooker?

Postby Wildey

Jewell wrote:
Wildey wrote:So Jewell was born when Hendry turned Pro :chin:


so just how exactly do you come anywhere near understanding the impact Hendry has had on snooker while you was in the womb.


Well, Hendry really started to get into gear during the 90s. We can discount what happened before that.

the seed had already been planted before he won the World Title for the first time ......he did not suddenly changed his game in 1990 he came in to snooker with a certain way of playing from the off.

Re: POLL: Who has made a bigger contribution to Snooker?

Postby Wildey

Jewell wrote:
Wildey wrote:
Jewell wrote:
Wildey wrote:So Jewell was born when Hendry turned Pro :chin:


so just how exactly do you come anywhere near understanding the impact Hendry has had on snooker while you was in the womb.


Well, Hendry really started to get into gear during the 90s. We can discount what happened before that.

the seed had already been planted before he won the World Title for the first time ......he did not suddenly changed his game in 1990 he came in to snooker with a certain way of playing from the off.


Right, and who exactly did he influence?

Certainly not Ronnie, or Williams and Higgins for that matter.

of course he influenced them Christ Higgins spent about 4 or 5 years as Hendrys Ball boy up in Scotland.

and as for Ronnie he respects Hendrys Game above anyone else and the 7 titles Hendry has is the benchmark Ronnie wants to reach.

Re: POLL: Who has made a bigger contribution to Snooker?

Postby Sickpotter

Jewell wrote:
Wildey wrote:
Jewell wrote:
Wildey wrote:So Jewell was born when Hendry turned Pro :chin:


so just how exactly do you come anywhere near understanding the impact Hendry has had on snooker while you was in the womb.


Well, Hendry really started to get into gear during the 90s. We can discount what happened before that.

the seed had already been planted before he won the World Title for the first time ......he did not suddenly changed his game in 1990 he came in to snooker with a certain way of playing from the off.


Right, and who exactly did he influence?

Certainly not Ronnie, or Williams and Higgins for that matter.


<doh>

That's just clueless.

Ronnie has stated Hendry had a huge influence on him.

Higgins only became a pro at Hendry's suggestion having been his practice partner for years.

Williams.....I don't have a direct quote coming to mind but players don't become greats of the game without emulating other greats. One would have to be a fool not to emulate the most dominant player of the time if one hoped to have any success as a pro.

If you ever want your posts to be taken seriously you should really stop making statments that scream "I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THIS GAME"