Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Sickpotter wrote:I gotta say citing ambidextrous is really the worst reason to suggest ROS is great. For more relevant is his play and his titles.

Remember being ambidextrous is a natural gift, not something you acquire through practice. There is no skill involved being ambidextrous.

Yeah, right!

Titles? I suppose Joe Johnson, Terry Griffiths and Dennis Taylor were all better at playing snooker than Jimmy White then? Stats and lies.

Sickpotter wrote:I gotta say citing ambidextrous is really the worst reason to suggest ROS is great. For more relevant is his play and his titles.

Remember being ambidextrous is a natural gift, not something you acquire through practice. There is no skill involved being ambidextrous.

Absolutely. Being able to use both hands is about as relevant as saying someone can play well sober or after drinking a bottle of vodka. How about saying Alex Higgins is the greatest because he could play to a standard whilst drunk that most couldn't play to whilst sober. O'Sullivan would been vomiting in the bog if he had drunk the amount Alex Higgins had drunk during matches. The only thing his left hand would been good for would have been flushing the chain.

vodkadiet wrote:

Sickpotter wrote:I gotta say citing ambidextrous is really the worst reason to suggest ROS is great. For more relevant is his play and his titles.

Remember being ambidextrous is a natural gift, not something you acquire through practice. There is no skill involved being ambidextrous.

Absolutely. Being able to use both hands is about as relevant as saying someone can play well sober or after drinking a bottle of vodka. How about saying Alex Higgins is the greatest because he could play to a standard whilst drunk that most couldn't play to whilst sober. O'Sullivan would been vomiting in the bog if he had drunk the amount Alex Higgins had drunk during matches. The only thing his left hand would been good for would have been flushing the chain.

If Ronnie had drunk the way Alex did, he wouldn't be playing at all now; who is the smarter player? Alex isn't with us; who is the smarter man? If Alex and Jimmy had stayed sober, they could have won a lot more. All I ever saw Hendry with was a bottle of water. Same with Davis and Ronnie.

You see, it's that kind of illogical nonsense that Sickpotter is renowned for. If playing wrong handed is easy, then every player would do it. Ronnie has had to put in an incredible amount of effort to work with both hands. Stevens has too, but he isn't half the player with the wrong hand that Ronnie is. This is yet another downplaying of the greatness of Ronnie. The same old crap.

Playing with the wrong hand is now easy
Playing super fast is "just as difficult" as playing slow
and Ronnie's talent is the real reason for his ability. Let's forget the hours of practice and other stuff he has had to go through, like having a pretty difficult life. Unlike Hendry, who was silver spoon from the word go.

Sickpotter and Vodkadiet, I'm sorry, but it's too late for you. We don't need to wait until the end of their careers. We know who the greatest is already.

Also, Sickpotter, you did indeed claim you were writing a book. It's here on this site. You said you were going to laugh as you blew my "century averages" for Ronnie v Hendry out of the water. You also claimed that Ronnie would soon be finished and his averages would tumble, like Hendry's did. And not being wrong enough, you also claimed he would never win another Major. Ronnie has won around 4 Majors, inc 2 World Titles, since you made that statement.

I think a lot of your prophesies and theories are all agenda based and wishful thinking.

There is no skill involved being ambidextrous.

That explains you don't understand what it is. You don't just pick up a cue with the wrong hand and go "Wheeeee".

And if we want to go on comparisons of skill, Hendry's safety game was nowhere near Ronnie's. Once his long potting started to go awry, he had no B game. Williams beat him a few times, and this legendary bottle and mental strength everyone parrots, suddenly vaporized.

Federer has all the records in tennis, but how can he be the best of all time when he's clearly never had the measure of Nadal?

Because tennis is a completely different game that has different match ups. Nadal got beat in his prime at the greatest slam by Darcis and Rosol. Federer didn't. Nadal is also losing h2h on fast surfaces including indoor hard and grass. Today's conditions favour Nadal in tennis.

Sonny

With respect your taking the snake hiss

John Higgins

edwards2000 wrote:You see, it's that kind of illogical nonsense that Sickpotter is renowned for. If playing wrong handed is easy, then every player would do it. Ronnie has had to put in an incredible amount of effort to work with both hands. Stevens has too, but he isn't half the player with the wrong hand that Ronnie is. This is yet another downplaying of the greatness of Ronnie. The same old crap.

Playing with the wrong hand is now easy
Playing super fast is "just as difficult" as playing slow
and Ronnie's talent is the real reason for his ability. Let's forget the hours of practice and other stuff he has had to go through, like having a pretty difficult life. Unlike Hendry, who was silver spoon from the word go.

Sickpotter and Vodkadiet, I'm sorry, but it's too late for you. We don't need to wait until the end of their careers. We know who the greatest is already.

Also, Sickpotter, you did indeed claim you were writing a book. It's here on this site. You said you were going to laugh as you blew my "century averages" for Ronnie v Hendry out of the water. You also claimed that Ronnie would soon be finished and his averages would tumble, like Hendry's did. And not being wrong enough, you also claimed he would never win another Major. Ronnie has won around 4 Majors, inc 2 World Titles, since you made that statement.

I think a lot of your prophesies and theories are all agenda based and wishful thinking.

There is no skill involved being ambidextrous.

That explains you don't understand what it is. You don't just pick up a cue with the wrong hand and go "Wheeeee".

And if we want to go on comparisons of skill, Hendry's safety game was nowhere near Ronnie's. Once his long potting started to go awry, he had no B game. Williams beat him a few times, and this legendary bottle and mental strength everyone parrots, suddenly vaporized.

Please find the post that said I'd write a book, etc.

Any prophecy I wrote regarding ROS would've been based on his form/statements at the time. When ROS was going on about retirement predictions stating he'd never beat X record or Y record were quite viable. His decision not to retire has changed everything.

You clearly don't know what ambidextrous is if you think it's a learned skill.

If a person is ambidextrous yes, they do just pick up a cue (or whatever sporting equipment they're using) and go "Wheee" with either hand......being ambidextrous means you don't have a "right" hand.

I never said or even suggested Ronnie hasn't put in the practice time. I simply acknowledge that ROS's huge natural talent permits him to perform at a level others can't reach simply through practice.

I was practicing with a guy the other day who played in the Norbreck qualifiers when Ronnie was 15 and he said you couldn't get near him because of his body guards! He also said he couldn't believe how good he was, that he could see all the other players struggling with the table in comparison and Ronnie was making it look so easy. I guess with his 74 from 76 record in those days this is the yardstick he's been measuring himself against ever since and has only recently found inner peace with his game and saying this is how he used to play.

It was so funny listening to Ronnie a few years ago, saying he wished he could play like he did when he was a teenager. A friend used to see him practice in his youth, and confirmed to me how special his talent is. So basically Sonny, has the world ever seen the best of the Rocket? I think in the record breaking 147 we did. It's such a shame that a decade of his career was wiped out by illness etc. What have we missed?!

Wildey wrote:Sonny

With respect your taking the snake hiss

John Higgins

Gotta agree totally Wild

If the question had been "Greatest MENTALLY STRONG and WINNING WITH THIER B GAME player ever" then fair enough Higgins would win hands down, but hes rarely destroyed any opponents throughout the years, bulk of his memorable wins have been backs to the wall "grinds" to an extent.

The Hendry - Ronnie comparison can be diluted by the old "different eras" argument so hard to compare, but Ronnie and Higgins careers transcend each other so a fair comparison can be made, and in this case Higgins is a distant second to Ronnie both on titles won (all the more remarkable given Ronnie notoriously questionable attitude at times), average levels of performance throughout the years etc.

Back onto the Ronnie and Hendry debate and without downplaying the Hendry dominance years which were a real turn off for many due to his winning (no fault of his), the fact he only won 1 major after the age of 27 is a big sticking point for me im afraid.

The question is who is the greatest of all time, not whos the greatest over a 10 period.

If that's the case, ill say Joe Davis is the greatest of all time, as he was dominant over a near 20 year period.

Other notable names worthy of inclusion in the debate, Reardon, Alex Higgins, Steve Davis, Fred Davis and controversially to some no doubt, Jimmy White (for style of play and mass public appeal moreso than achievements)

I do apologize, Sickpotter. You were the one to make those boneheaded predictions, but it was AlexoPaul who was writing a book to disprove me haha. Old age is getting to me, I'm in decline ;)

viewtopic.php?f=25&t=318&p=9820&hilit=water#p9820

Alexopaul wrote:On another note of stats I am currently working on a book that will have every result in it from snooker history including qualifying, challenge tours and major invitational events. It should be ready by the World Championships.

It will blow his "O'Sullivan has a better 100 break average way out of the water"

I'm still waiting for this book, Alex. I am also waiting for an explanation on how a book was ever meant to disprove a factual stat like century averages. Cuetracker's site makes interesting reading nowadays.

Witz78 wrote:

Wildey wrote:Sonny

With respect your taking the snake hiss

John Higgins

Gotta agree totally Wild

If the question had been "Greatest MENTALLY STRONG and WINNING WITH THIER B GAME player ever" then fair enough Higgins would win hands down, but hes rarely destroyed any opponents throughout the years, bulk of his memorable wins have been backs to the wall "grinds" to an extent.

The Hendry - Ronnie comparison can be diluted by the old "different eras" argument so hard to compare, but Ronnie and Higgins careers transcend each other so a fair comparison can be made, and in this case Higgins is a distant second to Ronnie both on titles won (all the more remarkable given Ronnie notoriously questionable attitude at times), average levels of performance throughout the years etc.

Back onto the Ronnie and Hendry debate and without downplaying the Hendry dominance years which were a real turn off for many due to his winning (no fault of his), the fact he only won 1 major after the age of 27 is a big sticking point for me im afraid.

The question is who is the greatest of all time, not whos the greatest over a 10 period.

If that's the case, ill say Joe Davis is the greatest of all time, as he was dominant over a near 20 year period.

Other notable names worthy of inclusion in the debate, Reardon, Alex Higgins, Steve Davis, Fred Davis and controversially to some no doubt, Jimmy White (for style of play and mass public appeal moreso than achievements)

That's an incredibly salient point you make sir. Why couldn't Hendry cope with the competition from age 27 years onwards?! 27 isn't old. If he was so good, he should have kept on winning for another ten years. I put this down to lack of competition in his dominant period and the arrival of Higgins, MJW, Ronnie, Doherty, Parrot etc. Better players.

I'll probably edit out my posts if the ronniegasms keep up.

Holden Chinaski wrote:I just came back from a session of snooker and I think I can tell you who the worst player in the world is... Me.
My highest break today was 16 and think I gave about 100 foul points away ffs.

Yikes! What's your highest break mate? Not intended to be a rude question btw.

"That's an incredibly salient point you make sir. Why couldn't Hendry cope with the competition from age 27 years onwards?! 27 isn't old. If he was so good, he should have kept on winning for another ten years. I put this down to lack of competition in his dominant period and the arrival of Higgins, MJW, Ronnie, Doherty, Parrot etc. Better players." - Trumpster

These players were around to play Hendry in his prime, ROS won his first ranker in '92. The 90's still had a strong group of good match players, something sadly lacking in today's circuit. Maybe some of them weren't as proficient break builders as today's crop but they certainly had more tactical nuance.

Longevity in the sport is impacted by many things. Would ROS be playing well now if he had applied himself to the sport with single-minded dedication for a decade? Hard to say but it certainly had an impact on Hendry's longevity.

Sickpotter wrote:"That's an incredibly salient point you make sir. Why couldn't Hendry cope with the competition from age 27 years onwards?! 27 isn't old. If he was so good, he should have kept on winning for another ten years. I put this down to lack of competition in his dominant period and the arrival of Higgins, MJW, Ronnie, Doherty, Parrot etc. Better players." - Trumpster

These players were around to play Hendry in his prime, ROS won his first ranker in '92. The 90's still had a strong group of good match players, something sadly lacking in today's circuit. Maybe some of them weren't as proficient break builders as today's crop but they certainly had more tactical nuance.

Longevity in the sport is impacted by many things. Would ROS be playing well now if he had applied himself to the sport with single-minded dedication for a decade? Hard to say but it certainly had an impact on Hendry's longevity.

Good point about burn-out. Maybe Ronnie has been fortunate to not from suffer it so much, and perhaps being so natural also helps. He also has a more natural, easier on the eye and joints set-up than Hendry did. In his latter career, Hendry dropped that shoulder and altered his set-up and not in am improving way. However, Ronnie has had to cope with being bi-polar for a long time and this can finish off the most sane of people, nevermind folk expected to compete at the top end of a sport. And then there is his dad. So for him to be grand master today, is quite a feat. I think in his life, he's been through the mill as much as Hendry and probably a lot more. But he's still firing.

Sickpotter wrote:"That's an incredibly salient point you make sir. Why couldn't Hendry cope with the competition from age 27 years onwards?! 27 isn't old. If he was so good, he should have kept on winning for another ten years. I put this down to lack of competition in his dominant period and the arrival of Higgins, MJW, Ronnie, Doherty, Parrot etc. Better players." - Trumpster

These players were around to play Hendry in his prime, ROS won his first ranker in '92. The 90's still had a strong group of good match players, something sadly lacking in today's circuit. Maybe some of them weren't as proficient break builders as today's crop but they certainly had more tactical nuance.

Longevity in the sport is impacted by many things. Would ROS be playing well now if he had applied himself to the sport with single-minded dedication for a decade? Hard to say but it certainly had an impact on Hendry's longevity.

Hendry gave it all in that 10 years period from 1990 to 1999, and more precisely from 1990 to 1996 since after 1996 he only won 1 more Major, the Worlds.

The big question here is to see who's the greatest player of all time IN HIS ENTIRE CAREER or instead over a 10 YEAR PERIOD for instance. In his entire career I don't think there's many doubts Ronnie is the greatest due to his incredible achievments over so far his 22 year as a pro, but Hendry shouldn't be discounted because the man won everything there was to win over a a short period of time and if anything that's even more difficult to do.

For me despite being a Ronnie fan I think Hendry is still the greatest, the major benchmark here are the World Titles, if Ronnie can somehow reach 7 and tie Hendry on that record than for me he would become the greatest, but this is a very fine line in considering "only" the titles a player has won or looking at other majr things like the impact a player has had in the game, their natural ability to play snooker, their longevity in playing it and so on.... Number of titles are the most obvious and perhaps fairest comparison between greats of the game, but other factors like those I mentioned need to be taken into consideration too and in that regard Ronnie is clearly a level above the rest.

I wouldn't dream 3 or 4 years ago Ronnie would achieve the things he has since working with Steve Peters, so in a way everything he gets from here is a bonus really like he himself oftens admits it, but he too can't hide the fact he'd love to break or tie some of Hendry's records, which he has already, but mainly the Major ones like his World Titles.

Hendry gave it all in that 10 years period from 1990 to 1999, and more precisely from 1990 to 1996 since after 1996 he only won 1 more Major, the Worlds.

Look at who beat him in the Majors 1997-2003.

Out of the 20 times Hendry was beaten in this period (Triple Crown only), 18 involved players from O'Sullivan's era, and 7 of those defeats were to Williams.

edwards2000 wrote:

Hendry gave it all in that 10 years period from 1990 to 1999, and more precisely from 1990 to 1996 since after 1996 he only won 1 more Major, the Worlds.

That's absolutely brilliant logic. So in 1997, and 1998, he just didn't try enough, I guess?

Seriously. Think about what you have just written. It doesn't make a lick of sense because it's a bogus excuse. Instead of trying to pluck some rationale from the sky, look at what is more likely and logical - the new breed of players, unhindered by the closed shop snooker used to be, came through and affected Hendry's dominance. This happened because they were nabbing titles he used to be winning at a canter. They (specifically Williams) destroyed his confidence, and after that it was downhill. He simply never recovered.

Look at who beat him in the Majors 1997-2002.

You're right edwards but maybe I didn't explain myself properly. Williams like you say is the one who gave him the most headaches especially after 1998 Masters final loss, but of course he did try in 1997 and 1998 but Williams and Higgins especially were getting better at the time and duly beat him on a number of occasions, plus Ronnie too in that 1997 UK Champs Final for instance.

So most likely it was down to him not being able to recover from bad losses and win more titles, but what Hendry did from 1990 to 1996 shouldnt be discounted and should be fully appreciated.

have I slipped through a hole in time and landed back at 606 circa 2006.........



now, where's that junkyard for this endless marmite

edwards2000 wrote:

Hendry gave it all in that 10 years period from 1990 to 1999, and more precisely from 1990 to 1996 since after 1996 he only won 1 more Major, the Worlds.

That's absolutely brilliant logic. So in 1997, and 1998, he just didn't try enough, I guess?

Seriously. Think about what you have just written. It doesn't make a lick of sense because it's a bogus excuse. Instead of trying to pluck some rationale from the sky, look at what is more likely and logical - the new breed of players, unhindered by the closed shop snooker used to be, came through and affected Hendry's dominance. This happened because they were nabbing titles he used to be winning at a canter. They (specifically Williams) destroyed his confidence, and after that it was downhill. He simply never recovered.

Look at who beat him in the Majors 1997-2002.

Spot on mate. Some folk never include Reardon's 6 world titles in a discussion because they say it wasn't a professional or competitive era. They're right and neither was Hendry's dominance. You've got Jimmy larging it on alcohol and lines on a Saturday night during a World final! Jimmy gave Hendry two titles IMO, so he's really only worth 5. These days, we have Q school, players don't just buy a ticket to tour anymore. I consider post '92 to be the competitive era in snooker and post 2003 to be the internationally competitive era (the year DIng turned pro). The records before '92 ain't worth more than Joe Davis' record to me (and as a big fan of Alex and Jimmy, I've been watching snooker since about '79).

Notice how none of these look at the stats, look at the records fans ever mention Joe Davis. I wonder why?!

Lucky wrote:have I slipped through a hole in time and landed back at 606 circa 2006.........



now, where's that junkyard for this endless marmite

If you can't debate properly, then it is you that needs to return to 606. Leave the adults to have a discussion. Cheers.

@trumpster

I watched the last 10 frames of 1992 World Championship a day or two ago, and I can tell you Jimmy threw it away. It's on Youtube. So anyone who didn't see it, or like me, couldn't remember it, go and give it a watch. Ding, Robertson, Ronnie, Higgins, Williams and Selby would have put Hendry to bed that match. He was not "invincible", he was missing left, right, and centre. Wild seems to be a vocal critique of O'Sullivan's opponents on here. Well, Wild, go and give 1992 another look. It's quite amusing. Hendry was there for the taking. Jimmy was 14-8 up and it was not Hendry's play that got him back into it. It was a bottle job from Jimmy. Ten frames in a row.

Trumpster wrote:

edwards2000 wrote:

Hendry gave it all in that 10 years period from 1990 to 1999, and more precisely from 1990 to 1996 since after 1996 he only won 1 more Major, the Worlds.

That's absolutely brilliant logic. So in 1997, and 1998, he just didn't try enough, I guess?

Seriously. Think about what you have just written. It doesn't make a lick of sense because it's a bogus excuse. Instead of trying to pluck some rationale from the sky, look at what is more likely and logical - the new breed of players, unhindered by the closed shop snooker used to be, came through and affected Hendry's dominance. This happened because they were nabbing titles he used to be winning at a canter. They (specifically Williams) destroyed his confidence, and after that it was downhill. He simply never recovered.

Look at who beat him in the Majors 1997-2002.

Spot on mate. Some folk never include Reardon's 6 world titles in a discussion because they say it wasn't a professional or competitive era. They're right and neither was Hendry's dominance. You've got Jimmy larging it on alcohol and lines on a Saturday night during a World final! Jimmy gave Hendry two titles IMO, so he's really only worth 5. These days, we have Q school, players don't just buy a ticket to tour anymore. I consider post '92 to be the competitive era in snooker and post 2003 to be the internationally competitive era (the year DIng turned pro). The records before '92 ain't worth more than Joe Davis' record to me.

Notice how none of these look at the stats, look at the records fans ever mention Joe Davis. I wonder why?!

Just look at what you said there, I mean... by that brilliant logic Ronnie too should only be worth 3 World Titles because in 2 of them he beat his bunny Carter

Hendry fully deserved the World Titles he's won, and many here do like to downplay his achievemnts saying it was a weak era, what a load of bullocks...

Like lucky said this is turning out to be an endless marmite discussion because some of the things you and a few others have said just don't make any sense at all.

Wait until hendry-fan comes here and laughs at you and a few others about that "weak era" bullocks...

Trumpster wrote:

edwards2000 wrote:

Hendry gave it all in that 10 years period from 1990 to 1999, and more precisely from 1990 to 1996 since after 1996 he only won 1 more Major, the Worlds.

That's absolutely brilliant logic. So in 1997, and 1998, he just didn't try enough, I guess?

Seriously. Think about what you have just written. It doesn't make a lick of sense because it's a bogus excuse. Instead of trying to pluck some rationale from the sky, look at what is more likely and logical - the new breed of players, unhindered by the closed shop snooker used to be, came through and affected Hendry's dominance. This happened because they were nabbing titles he used to be winning at a canter. They (specifically Williams) destroyed his confidence, and after that it was downhill. He simply never recovered.

Look at who beat him in the Majors 1997-2002.

Spot on mate. Some folk never include Reardon's 6 world titles in a discussion because they say it wasn't a professional or competitive era. They're right and neither was Hendry's dominance. You've got Jimmy larging it on alcohol and lines on a Saturday night during a World final! Jimmy gave Hendry two titles IMO, so he's really only worth 5. These days, we have Q school, players don't just buy a ticket to tour anymore. I consider post '92 to be the competitive era in snooker and post 2003 to be the internationally competitive era (the year DIng turned pro). The records before '92 ain't worth more than Joe Davis' record to me.

Notice how none of these look at the stats, look at the records fans ever mention Joe Davis. I wonder why?!

Just look at what you said there, I mean... by that brilliant logic Ronnie too should only be worth 3 World Titles because in 2 of them he beat his bunny Carter

Hendry fully deserved the World Titles he's won, and many here do like to downplay his achievemnts saying it was a weak era, what a load of bullocks...

Like lucky said this is turning out to be an endless marmite discussion because some of the things you and a few others have said just don't make any sense at all.

Wait until hendry-fan comes here and laughs at you and a few others about that "weak era" bullocks...

The problem with your post there is that it fails to understand that Ronnie's draws have generally been a lot more difficult than Hendry's overall. Unless you think the final is the only round you play in? Hendry's finals had Jimmy 4 times, (and another SF with him), and Nigel Bond.

Hendry had numerous run ins with that wizard Bond, not to mention the marvellous Alain Robidoux and Darren Morgan. And other players who were simply never heard of again.

And then you have Hendry himself, who admits this.

Sory about the same post twice, don't know why it happened.

I just want to double note it to Wild. I suggest everyone take a good look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AiuqLnvyv4

This is the unbeatable Hendry (who always won because he was the best, and not because his opponent messed up) we keep hearing about.

edwards2000 wrote:The problem with your post there is that it fails to understand that Ronnie's draws have generally been a lot more difficult than Hendry's overall. Unless you think the final is the only round you play in? Hendry's finals had Jimmy 4 times, (and another SF with him), and Nigel Bond.

Of course not and I never said that, but why downplay Jimmy White's play in those finals against Hendry, so basically in your view Jimmy might as well not turned up since he handed Hendry at least a couple of World Titles, right?

I do agree with one thing, Hendry for instance winning those 10 concecutive frames in 1992 final was more down to Jimmy bottling it badly than Hendry's super play, and the same thing happened when Hallet had loads of chances to wn that 1991 Masters final from 8-2 up... Almost all the frames Hendry won there from 8-2 down came to the colours and Hallet bottled so so many chances it was unbelievable so it clearly wasn't due to Hendry's brilliant play.

But he still had to pot the balls in those matches and withstand the pressure involved and he duly did, so that should be apreciated too.

And despite being only 21 I have watched that match full and many many others classic ones from the past.