Post a reply

Greatest Genius v Greatest Ever

Postby Tubberlad

The Stephen Hendry v Ronnie O'Sullivan is arguably the most mundane argument you'll find anywhere on snooker forums. I can honestly say it does my head in. Both are quite rightly proclaimed as the two best players of all time, and I don't see the need to argue for either case, but at the same time I'd like to try and seperate both in terms of greatness and genius.

I was too young to see Stephen Hendry at his absolute best. My first World Championship was in 1999, and although he impressed me, I was far too young to take serious notice. However, I would make no hesitation proclaiming him as the greatest ever.

The factors I would use to decide the greatest in every sport are as follows

*success
*ability to perform under pressure
*records
*dominance
*the ability to raise the bar in their profession to new levels
*consistency

Using these factors, I would rate the following as the best at their respective sports:

Snooker: Stephen Hendry
Athletics: Usain Bolt
Boxing: Muhammad Ali
Cricket: Don Bradman or Muralitharin
Cycling: Lance Armstrong
Darts: Phil Taylor
Formula One: Michael Schumacher
Football: Pele
Gaelic Football: Mick O'Connell
Golf: Jack Nicklaus or Tiger Woods
Horseracing: Tony McCoy
Hurling: Henry Shefflin or Christy Ring
Rugby: David Campese
Tennis: Roger Federer

The thing that struck me as I read this article though was that a huge ammount of people proclaimed Stephen Hendry, and not Ronnie O'Sullivan, as the greatest genius the game has ever had. Hendry may be the greatest ever, but I would not describe him as a genius, let alone the greatest genius. I would go as far to claim as Ronnie O'Sullivan is the greatest genius any sport has ever had. Let's just get this clear: genius has nothing to do with success. I'd rate Jimmy White as being perhaps a borderline genius, far more so than Hendry. Who in their right mind would claim that White is a better player than the Scot?

My factors for genius:

*The ability to do the right things on instinct, speed does perhaps have quite a bit to do with this. It's doing the right things without needing to think about it, rather than doing it because you have to. Natural ability.
*To have reached a higher level of performance than anyone before. Hendry, Davis and Higgins may have put in great performances, but would it ever blow you away in the way O'Sullivan would? I'm definitely in the no camp, having watched the best displays from these respective men.
*The ability to appear at one with your profession. O'Sullivan on form, switching between left and right so seamlessly is poetry in motion.

Very rarely you find someone who can tick both the greatest and greatest genius boxes. Usain Bolt is perhaps an exception, as are Federer and Warne although I wouldn't quite rate them top in both respects. Snooker I feel has had two genuine geniuses: O'Sullivan and Alex Higgins, with Jimmy White in the same mould.

Snooker: Ronnie O'Sullivan
Athletics: Usain Bolt
Boxing: Roy Jones
Cricket: Gary Sobers or Shane Warne
Cycling: Eddie Merckx (I'm not a big cycling fan, so this is probably a long shot)
Darts: Nobody leaps out at me
Football: Maradonna
Formula One: Ayrton Senna
Gaelic Football: Maurice Fitzgerald
Golf: Seve Ballesteros
Horseracing: Ruby Walsh
Hurling: DJ Carey
Rugby: Lomu or Blanco
Tennis: John McEnroe

The main point of this article is to distinguish the boundaries between being the greatest and being a genius. Two completely different things. No doubt this debate will descend into mayhem, but I wanted to give my opinions on this.

Re: Greatest Genius v Greatest Ever

Postby Wildey

tubber for what its worth i agree with how you define thesre 2 outstanding players of our times.

in the 80s people was saying jimmy white was a better player than Steve Davis.

talent wise he was but i was looking at both players thinking people barking up the wrong tree here and Hendry and Ronnie has taken it to another level.

anyway if this descends in to farce i suggest you close it <ok>

Re: Greatest Genius v Greatest Ever

Postby Noel

My definition of "genius" must include the "Just put it in the hole, Stupid!" originator.

=o)
Noel

Re: Greatest Genius v Greatest Ever

Postby Tubberlad

rocket_ron wrote:
wildJONESEYE wrote:if its mundane why have you started it again rofl

I have to agree with wild

Agree with what exactly? I'm not focusing on which one is better, I'm trying to distinguish between genius and greatness. A bit spooky this was written on the same day as Higgins died though, he was a genius, no question.

Re: Greatest Genius v Greatest Ever

Postby Rocket_ron

thetubberlad wrote:
rocket_ron wrote:
wildJONESEYE wrote:if its mundane why have you started it again rofl

I have to agree with wild

Agree with what exactly? I'm not focusing on which one is better, I'm trying to distinguish between genius and greatness. A bit spooky this was written on the same day as Higgins died though, he was a genius, no question.

this gets boring tho, hendry greatist ever then davis then J Higgins then ronnie. no question.

now on the genius side then its clear ronnie then alex higgins then jimmy white

End Of

Re: Greatest Genius v Greatest Ever

Postby Tubberlad

Steve Davis and John Higgins better than O'Sullivan <laugh> sorry mate, I find that really cute :) especially the John Higgins bit

Re: Greatest Genius v Greatest Ever

Postby Rocket_ron

thetubberlad wrote:Steve Davis and John Higgins better than O'Sullivan <laugh> sorry mate, I find that really cute :) especially the John Higgins bit

read the stats then come back to me

Re: Greatest Genius v Greatest Ever

Postby Tubberlad

Another stats man, eh? Well O'Sullivan has won more titles than John Higgins, been world number one more often, leads their overall head to head, has made more centuries, has won four more majors than Higgins, has a better World Championship record, and has played the game to a much higher standard. What's more? They've been playing in the same era.

Davis may have more titles, but he didn't have to face the likes of Reardon (at top form that is), O'Sullivan, Hendry, Higgins J, Williams, Hunter etc. on a consistent basis. Certainly there's probably more of a case for Davis considering his amazing achievements at later stages of his career, but I think even Davis himself knows that O'Sullivan would have his number if you had both playing against each other at their peaks.

Re: Greatest Genius v Greatest Ever

Postby Witz78

thetubberlad wrote:Another stats man, eh? Well O'Sullivan has won more titles than John Higgins, been world number one more often, leads their overall head to head, has made more centuries, has won four more majors than Higgins, has a better World Championship record, and has played the game to a much higher standard. What's more? They've been playing in the same era.

Davis may have more titles, but he didn't have to face the likes of Reardon (at top form that is), O'Sullivan, Hendry, Higgins J, Williams, Hunter etc. on a consistent basis. Certainly there's probably more of a case for Davis considering his amazing achievements at later stages of his career, but I think even Davis himself knows that O'Sullivan would have his number if you had both playing against each other at their peaks.


i agree Tubber that Davis would (and openly accepts Ronnies a far better talent than he is ) but if Davis and Ronnie were both playing at each others peaks then im sure Davis would get under Ronnies skin and tacticaly outwit him and frustrate him more often than not and lead their H2H (i mean think of Selby, Ebdon as poor mans Davis, yet theyve managed to derail Ronnie on many an occasion, so a peak Davis would easily do the same)

Its just like Davis always got under Alex Higgins skin in the 80s, Hendry under Jimmys in the 90s, so its clear that the flair players, the natural talents struggle when up against a born winner.

Re: Greatest Genius v Greatest Ever

Postby Rocket_ron

Witz78 wrote:
thetubberlad wrote:Another stats man, eh? Well O'Sullivan has won more titles than John Higgins, been world number one more often, leads their overall head to head, has made more centuries, has won four more majors than Higgins, has a better World Championship record, and has played the game to a much higher standard. What's more? They've been playing in the same era.

Davis may have more titles, but he didn't have to face the likes of Reardon (at top form that is), O'Sullivan, Hendry, Higgins J, Williams, Hunter etc. on a consistent basis. Certainly there's probably more of a case for Davis considering his amazing achievements at later stages of his career, but I think even Davis himself knows that O'Sullivan would have his number if you had both playing against each other at their peaks.


i agree Tubber that Davis would (and openly accepts Ronnies a far better talent than he is ) but if Davis and Ronnie were both playing at each others peaks then im sure Davis would get under Ronnies skin and tacticaly outwit him and frustrate him more often than not and lead their H2H (i mean think of Selby, Ebdon as poor mans Davis, yet theyve managed to derail Ronnie on many an occasion, so a peak Davis would easily do the same)

Its just like Davis always got under Alex Higgins skin in the 80s, Hendry under Jimmys in the 90s, so its clear that the flair players, the natural talents struggle when up against a born winner.

Totally agree with you witz.

i can see selby and edbon as a poor mans steve davis and they certainly frustrate ronnie.

tubbs, still waiting on head to head results ;)

Re: Greatest Genius v Greatest Ever

Postby Rocket_ron

thetubberlad wrote:O'Sullivan leads the overall head to head by something like 28-21 or something like that. Can't find. It was 26-16 in this link http://snookerscene.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... valry.html but it's two years out of date. O'Sullivan still leads though.

why does it feel as higgins always comes out on top? it upsets me

Re: Greatest Genius v Greatest Ever

Postby Wildey

Steve never got under Alex Skin apart from the fact he beat him.

Steve Davis was not that type of player he played the game and a good tactician but he was never a Reardon that really frustrated Alex or Cliff Thorburn apart from the fact the ginger nut was winning again.

Re: Greatest Genius v Greatest Ever

Postby Tubberlad

I posted the head to heads rocket.
Well Witz, while I agree with you, would you rate Ebdon or Selby as better players than O'Sullivan? Head to head is pointless. If O'Sullivan played in the eighties he probably would have won more Davis at the end of the day.

Re: Greatest Genius v Greatest Ever

Postby Tubberlad

rocket_ron wrote:
thetubberlad wrote:O'Sullivan leads the overall head to head by something like 28-21 or something like that. Can't find. It was 26-16 in this link http://snookerscene.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... valry.html but it's two years out of date. O'Sullivan still leads though.

why does it feel as higgins always comes out on top? it upsets me

I don't know, because recently Higgins has had the upper hand. They both played each other in a 2001 world final in good form, O'Sullivan won comfortably enough.

Re: Greatest Genius v Greatest Ever

Postby Rocket_ron

thetubberlad wrote:I posted the head to heads rocket.
Well Witz, while I agree with you, would you rate Ebdon or Selby as better players than O'Sullivan? Head to head is pointless. If O'Sullivan played in the eighties he probably would have won more Davis at the end of the day.

form beats talent im affraid, davis played like a robot with a perfect technigne im sure he would hammer ronnie in the 80's

Re: Greatest Genius v Greatest Ever

Postby Tubberlad

rocket_ron wrote:
thetubberlad wrote:I posted the head to heads rocket.
Well Witz, while I agree with you, would you rate Ebdon or Selby as better players than O'Sullivan? Head to head is pointless. If O'Sullivan played in the eighties he probably would have won more Davis at the end of the day.

form beats talent im affraid, davis played like a robot with a perfect technigne im sure he would hammer ronnie in the 80's

No way. Nobody hammers O'Sullivan. Not even Hendry, and he was a class above Steve Davis. So you still think Higgins is better than O'Sullivan then? :redneck:

Re: Greatest Genius v Greatest Ever

Postby Wildey

he had the upper hand last season yes but dont let one season define a career although i admit the gap between Ronnie and John has closed over the last 3 or 4 years Ronnie still Leading in my opinion.

early 2000s i had Williams ahead of Higgins also but these days hes drifted out where as John got better.

Re: Greatest Genius v Greatest Ever

Postby Rocket_ron

thetubberlad wrote:
rocket_ron wrote:
thetubberlad wrote:I posted the head to heads rocket.
Well Witz, while I agree with you, would you rate Ebdon or Selby as better players than O'Sullivan? Head to head is pointless. If O'Sullivan played in the eighties he probably would have won more Davis at the end of the day.

form beats talent im affraid, davis played like a robot with a perfect technigne im sure he would hammer ronnie in the 80's

No way. Nobody hammers O'Sullivan. Not even Hendry, and he was a class above Steve Davis. So you still think Higgins is better than O'Sullivan then? :redneck:

i wish 1997 - 2000 ronnie would have done more. but them years he let higgins rule, now he is letting higgins rule again

Re: Greatest Genius v Greatest Ever

Postby Wildey

Higgins cant rule hes on his ass as Neil Robertson overtakes him as provisional no 1.

Re: Greatest Genius v Greatest Ever

Postby Rocket_ron

thetubberlad wrote:He didn't let Higgins rule, Higgins has just outplayed him at those times.

higgins was able to rule because ronnie was unable to perform at his best due to family problems and depression

Re: Greatest Genius v Greatest Ever

Postby Witz78

a stat which saddens me is this.

Reardon, Davis and Hendry (the 3 most successful players of the modern era) - 19 World Titles

Higgins, White and Ronnie (the 3 most exciting, natural talents of the modern era) - 5 World Titles

It pains me as im firmly in the camp of the latter, the flair players.

Re: Greatest Genius v Greatest Ever

Postby Rocket_ron

Witz78 wrote:a stat which saddens me is this.

Reardon, Davis and Hendry (the 3 most successful players of the modern era) - 19 World Titles

Higgins, White and Ronnie (the 3 most exciting, natural talents of the modern era) - 5 World Titles

It pains me as im firmly in the camp of the latter, the flair players.

good stats witz, i've never looked at it from this angle before yes it is sad :-(

Re: Greatest Genius v Greatest Ever

Postby Tubberlad

rocket_ron wrote:
thetubberlad wrote:He didn't let Higgins rule, Higgins has just outplayed him at those times.

higgins was able to rule because ronnie was unable to perform at his best due to family problems and depression

He still ticks both boxes, but he's winning. O'Sullivan has nobody to blame but himself for his underachievement.


   

cron