Post a reply

Now versus then

Postby Dragonfly

A player from today, not at the very top of the game but a very decent player nonetheless, wakes up in 1980. Kinda like the Ashes to Ashes tv series. For the sake of conversation Ryan Day springs to mind. Think he's currently ranked mid 30s. A very competent player but not in the top elite.

So when he arrives in the 80s would be become the dominant player. Would he become world number 1 and world champion.

Obviously all sports develop and techniques improve. Do you think that a 30 ranked player from today is too strong for legends like Thorburn, Higgins, Griffiths and even Steve Davis. I know ultimately comparing generations is a bit unfair but it's a fun and interesting topic.

Re: Now versus then

Postby KrazeeEyezKilla

Day would have the benefit of 40 years of Snooker knowledge so it's possible he would be number one.

Re: Now versus then

Postby HustleKing

Well Steve Davis was still putting it up to the likes of Day, and some better players, 10-15 years ago when he was well past his peak. So whatever about anyone else, it's hard to see someone like Day coping with Davis in his prime regularly (they might sneak one title off him like Dennis, but that's it)

Re: Now versus then

Postby Dragonfly

HustleKing wrote:Well Steve Davis was still putting it up to the likes of Day, and some better players, 10-15 years ago when he was well past his peak. So whatever about anyone else, it's hard to see someone like Day coping with Davis in his prime regularly (they might sneak one title off him like Dennis, but that's it)


I was thinking the same thing really. Obviously someone like Day would be winning titles in the 80s and defeating the big names of the day on a regular basis.

Davis however is a different story. He was so far ahead of the rest at his peak. I think if we were speaking of the opposite scenario, where a player from the 80s arrives in 2020, Davis could certainly compete. His marvellous Crucible win over John Higgins confirms as much.

Re: Now versus then

Postby badtemperedcyril

KrazeeEyezKilla wrote:Day would have the benefit of 40 years of Snooker knowledge so it's possible he would be number one.

That is a very good answer.


However, irrespective off era's and the standard thereof, all the multiple Champions share a common attribute: They are WINNERS and have the motivation and desire to become the best.

When the pressure is on, that's when they instinctively move up a gear and raise their game. You can say the same for every great champion - Joe Davis, Fred Davis, John Pulman, Ray Reardon, Steve Davis, O'Sullivan, John HIggins, Mark Williams, Mark Selby.

Does Ryan Day share that attribute?

Re: Now versus then

Postby Muller

badtemperedcyril wrote:
KrazeeEyezKilla wrote:Day would have the benefit of 40 years of Snooker knowledge so it's possible he would be number one.

That is a very good answer.


However, irrespective off era's and the standard thereof, all the multiple Champions share a common attribute: They are WINNERS and have the motivation and desire to become the best.

When the pressure is on, that's when they instinctively move up a gear and raise their game. You can say the same for every great champion - Joe Davis, Fred Davis, John Pulman, Ray Reardon, Steve Davis, O'Sullivan, John HIggins, Mark Williams, Mark Selby.

Does Ryan Day share that attribute?



No.

Re: Now versus then

Postby Dan-cat

HustleKing wrote:Well Steve Davis was still putting it up to the likes of Day, and some better players, 10-15 years ago when he was well past his peak. So whatever about anyone else, it's hard to see someone like Day coping with Davis in his prime regularly (they might sneak one title off him like Dennis, but that's it)


Day ain't got the bottle for the big occasion. No, he wouldn't be the best.

Re: Now versus then

Postby Muller

Also we have to assume that he would be playing under the conditions that prevailed then.

Heavier balls and thicker cloths.

Re: Now versus then

Postby Johnny Bravo

HustleKing wrote:Well Steve Davis was still putting it up to the likes of Day, and some better players, 10-15 years ago when he was well past his peak. So whatever about anyone else, it's hard to see someone like Day coping with Davis in his prime regularly (they might sneak one title off him like Dennis, but that's it)

Day would beat the rubbish out of anyone back then.
Even I would beat a lot of them, let alone Day.

Re: Now versus then

Postby Holden Chinaski

Johnny Bravo wrote:
HustleKing wrote:Well Steve Davis was still putting it up to the likes of Day, and some better players, 10-15 years ago when he was well past his peak. So whatever about anyone else, it's hard to see someone like Day coping with Davis in his prime regularly (they might sneak one title off him like Dennis, but that's it)

Day would beat the rubbish out of anyone back then.
Even I would beat a lot of them, let alone Day.

Image

Re: Now versus then

Postby HustleKing

Holden Chinaski wrote:
Johnny Bravo wrote:
HustleKing wrote:Well Steve Davis was still putting it up to the likes of Day, and some better players, 10-15 years ago when he was well past his peak. So whatever about anyone else, it's hard to see someone like Day coping with Davis in his prime regularly (they might sneak one title off him like Dennis, but that's it)

Day would beat the rubbish out of anyone back then.
Even I would beat a lot of them, let alone Day.

Image


Cliff Thorburn doubling down on grinder mode vs Johnny: U mad bro?

Re: Now versus then

Postby Holden Chinaski

Ray Reardon is 87 years old but I bet he would still destroy Johnny B in a game of snooker without breaking a sweat. Even Dennis Taylor would beat Johnny with one hand behind his back.

Re: Now versus then

Postby Iranu

Holden Chinaski wrote:Ray Reardon is 87 years old but I bet he would still destroy Johnny B in a game of snooker without breaking a sweat. Even Dennis Taylor would beat Johnny with one hand behind his back.

Having watched Dennis in the Seniors I’m not so sure about that last part rofl

Re: Now versus then

Postby Holden Chinaski

Iranu wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:Ray Reardon is 87 years old but I bet he would still destroy Johnny B in a game of snooker without breaking a sweat. Even Dennis Taylor would beat Johnny with one hand behind his back.

Having watched Dennis in the Seniors I’m not so sure about that last part rofl

You haven't seen Johnny.

Re: Now versus then

Postby Iranu

Holden Chinaski wrote:
Iranu wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:Ray Reardon is 87 years old but I bet he would still destroy Johnny B in a game of snooker without breaking a sweat. Even Dennis Taylor would beat Johnny with one hand behind his back.

Having watched Dennis in the Seniors I’m not so sure about that last part rofl

You haven't seen Johnny.

Dennis couldn’t cope with Johnny’s opposite-hand-reverse-massé extravaganza.

Re: Now versus then

Postby Holden Chinaski

Iranu wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:
Iranu wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:Ray Reardon is 87 years old but I bet he would still destroy Johnny B in a game of snooker without breaking a sweat. Even Dennis Taylor would beat Johnny with one hand behind his back.

Having watched Dennis in the Seniors I’m not so sure about that last part rofl

You haven't seen Johnny.

Dennis couldn’t cope with Johnny’s opposite-hand-reverse-massé extravaganza.

rofl :mosh:

Re: Now versus then

Postby Muller

So, speaking as an Island neophyte am I to understand it that this Johnny fellow is something of a bullshitter?

Re: Now versus then

Postby HustleKing

Muller wrote:So, speaking as an Island neophyte am I to understand it that this Johnny fellow is something of a bullshitter?


Kinda. He has made a few century breaks, but he's admitted his safety isn't the best.

I think he overestimates he much he could pot his way out of trouble against various current and former pro players

Re: Now versus then

Postby Muller

HustleKing wrote:
Muller wrote:So, speaking as an Island neophyte am I to understand it that this Johnny fellow is something of a bullshitter?


Kinda. He has made a few century breaks, but he's admitted his safety isn't the best.

I think he overestimates he much he could pot his way out of trouble against various current and former pro players


Sounds like a bit of an attention seeker.

Re: Now versus then

Postby KrazeeEyezKilla

badtemperedcyril wrote:
KrazeeEyezKilla wrote:Day would have the benefit of 40 years of Snooker knowledge so it's possible he would be number one.

That is a very good answer.


However, irrespective off era's and the standard thereof, all the multiple Champions share a common attribute: They are WINNERS and have the motivation and desire to become the best.

When the pressure is on, that's when they instinctively move up a gear and raise their game. You can say the same for every great champion - Joe Davis, Fred Davis, John Pulman, Ray Reardon, Steve Davis, O'Sullivan, John HIggins, Mark Williams, Mark Selby.

Does Ryan Day share that attribute?


I don't think he has it but if sent back in time he'd have the benefit of hindsight that would be enough to be number One for a while until Davis hits his peak. He wouldn't be dominant.