Post a reply

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby vodkadiet1

Pink Ball wrote:From 1997 to 2005, Stephen Hendry played in 23 ranking finals. He won 10 of them. Two of his wins were against Graeme Dott, one against Joe Perry, one against Tony Drago and one against Mark King.

Of his 23 ranking finals in that time, he played 14 against the five best players of the late '90s and early '00s: Ronnie O'Sullivan, John Higgins, Mark Williams, Peter Ebdon and Ken Doherty. He won four and lost 10. He lost five of those between 1997 and 1999 alone, winning none. Three of those finals were in 1997.

He played in seven triple-crown finals between 1997 and 2003 (one a year, effectively). He won one of them, in 1999, against Mark Williams. All the finals he lost were against one of the five aforementioned players, with the exception of the 2003 UK final against Matthew Stevens.

Moral of the story: Stephen Hendry was competing hard and competing well. The motivation was clearly still there; he was making finals all the time. But over the longer matches, after he turned 27, he was rarely good enough against the very best.

He also played in one triple-crown final beyond that period, against Peter Ebdon in the 2006 UK Championship, but he lost of course.

Fatally undermines his claim to being the greatest of all time.


After Hendry broke the World Championship record his form fell off of a cliff. Motivation was undoubtedly a big part of this.

The point here is that it doesn't matter how bad Hendry became in his latter years. When he was at his peak he was better than O'Sullivan has ever been. O'Sullivan's longevity has been light years ahead of Hendry's but that isn't the conversation.

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby Prop

vodkadiet1 wrote:When he was at his peak he was better than O'Sullivan has ever been


Hahahaa rofl Think about what you’re saying here.

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby Pink Ball

vodkadiet1 wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:From 1997 to 2005, Stephen Hendry played in 23 ranking finals. He won 10 of them. Two of his wins were against Graeme Dott, one against Joe Perry, one against Tony Drago and one against Mark King.

Of his 23 ranking finals in that time, he played 14 against the five best players of the late '90s and early '00s: Ronnie O'Sullivan, John Higgins, Mark Williams, Peter Ebdon and Ken Doherty. He won four and lost 10. He lost five of those between 1997 and 1999 alone, winning none. Three of those finals were in 1997.

He played in seven triple-crown finals between 1997 and 2003 (one a year, effectively). He won one of them, in 1999, against Mark Williams. All the finals he lost were against one of the five aforementioned players, with the exception of the 2003 UK final against Matthew Stevens.

Moral of the story: Stephen Hendry was competing hard and competing well. The motivation was clearly still there; he was making finals all the time. But over the longer matches, after he turned 27, he was rarely good enough against the very best.

He also played in one triple-crown final beyond that period, against Peter Ebdon in the 2006 UK Championship, but he lost of course.

Fatally undermines his claim to being the greatest of all time.


After Hendry broke the World Championship record his form fell off of a cliff. Motivation was undoubtedly a big part of this.

The point here is that it doesn't matter how bad Hendry became in his latter years. When he was at his peak he was better than O'Sullivan has ever been. O'Sullivan's longevity has been light years ahead of Hendry's but that isn't the conversation.

His form didn't go off a cliff though, did it? He was making it to ranking and major finals with ease for years after 1996, because he was still at his peak up to about 33, as you'd expect of any players. He just wasn't winning them if he was against a really good player.

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby vodkadiet1

Prop wrote:
vodkadiet1 wrote:When he was at his peak he was better than O'Sullivan has ever been


Hahahaa rofl Think about what you’re saying here.


Hendry was number one for how many years when at his peak? 7 or 8 maybe?

If you are going to bother to post anything please make an effort. You have either not bothered to read my previous post or haven't got the intelligence to understand. There is no third option.

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby Iranu

vodkadiet1 wrote:
Prop wrote:
vodkadiet1 wrote:When he was at his peak he was better than O'Sullivan has ever been


Hahahaa rofl Think about what you’re saying here.


Hendry was number one for how many years when at his peak? 7 or 8 maybe?

If you are going to bother to post anything please make an effort. You have either not bothered to read my previous post or haven't got the intelligence to understand. There is no third option.

“Has ever been” doesn’t specify any period of time that I’m aware of.

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby Prop

vodkadiet1 wrote:
Prop wrote:
vodkadiet1 wrote:When he was at his peak he was better than O'Sullivan has ever been


Hahahaa rofl Think about what you’re saying here.


Hendry was number one for how many years when at his peak? 7 or 8 maybe?

If you are going to bother to post anything please make an effort. You have either not bothered to read my previous post or haven't got the intelligence to understand. There is no third option.


Ok, I’ll break it down for you, as you clearly don’t have the mental capacity to realise what you’ve said yourself, let alone understand my post.

You’ve essentially just said that Hendry’s peak game was better than Ronnie’s peak game.

If you need me, or anyone else to explain things any further, I suggest you think twice about telling people they don’t have a certain level of intelligence simply because they don’t conform to your opinion. Take a second to use your brain before you next hit that Submit button. Seriously.

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby vodkadiet1

Pink Ball wrote:
vodkadiet1 wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:From 1997 to 2005, Stephen Hendry played in 23 ranking finals. He won 10 of them. Two of his wins were against Graeme Dott, one against Joe Perry, one against Tony Drago and one against Mark King.

Of his 23 ranking finals in that time, he played 14 against the five best players of the late '90s and early '00s: Ronnie O'Sullivan, John Higgins, Mark Williams, Peter Ebdon and Ken Doherty. He won four and lost 10. He lost five of those between 1997 and 1999 alone, winning none. Three of those finals were in 1997.

He played in seven triple-crown finals between 1997 and 2003 (one a year, effectively). He won one of them, in 1999, against Mark Williams. All the finals he lost were against one of the five aforementioned players, with the exception of the 2003 UK final against Matthew Stevens.

Moral of the story: Stephen Hendry was competing hard and competing well. The motivation was clearly still there; he was making finals all the time. But over the longer matches, after he turned 27, he was rarely good enough against the very best.

He also played in one triple-crown final beyond that period, against Peter Ebdon in the 2006 UK Championship, but he lost of course.

Fatally undermines his claim to being the greatest of all time.


After Hendry broke the World Championship record his form fell off of a cliff. Motivation was undoubtedly a big part of this.

The point here is that it doesn't matter how bad Hendry became in his latter years. When he was at his peak he was better than O'Sullivan has ever been. O'Sullivan's longevity has been light years ahead of Hendry's but that isn't the conversation.

His form didn't go off a cliff though, did it? He was making it to ranking and major finals with ease for years after 1996, because he was still at his peak up to about 33, as you'd expect of any players. He just wasn't winning them if he was against a really good player.


Whatever the reason Hendry became garbage in his latter years doesn't take away from the fact that there has never been as dominant a player in the modern era. You could make a case for Steve Davis but not for anyone else.

I believe you are smart enough to understand this but for some reason you are pretending not to.

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby Iranu

I always had the impression Davis was more dominant than Hendry in terms of the nature of his wins and overall tour success? Albeit not in the Worlds of course.

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby vodkadiet1

Prop wrote:
vodkadiet1 wrote:
Prop wrote:
vodkadiet1 wrote:When he was at his peak he was better than O'Sullivan has ever been


Hahahaa rofl Think about what you’re saying here.


Hendry was number one for how many years when at his peak? 7 or 8 maybe?

If you are going to bother to post anything please make an effort. You have either not bothered to read my previous post or haven't got the intelligence to understand. There is no third option.


Ok, I’ll break it down for you, as you clearly don’t have the mental capacity to realise what you’ve said yourself, let alone understand my post.

You’ve essentially just said that Hendry’s peak game was better than Ronnie’s peak game.

If you need me, or anyone else to explain things any further, I suggest you think twice about telling people they don’t have a certain level of intelligence simply because they don’t conform to your opinion. Take a second to use your brain before you next hit that Submit button. Seriously.


Why did you bother? More superfluous nonsense. This is identical to talking with Brexiteers about the benefits of Brexit. You have nothing constructive to add because you are incapable. That isn't your fault so don't be hard on yourself.



You are entitled to your wrong opinion

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby Prop

vodkadiet1 wrote:
Prop wrote:
vodkadiet1 wrote:
Prop wrote:
vodkadiet1 wrote:When he was at his peak he was better than O'Sullivan has ever been


Hahahaa rofl Think about what you’re saying here.


Hendry was number one for how many years when at his peak? 7 or 8 maybe?

If you are going to bother to post anything please make an effort. You have either not bothered to read my previous post or haven't got the intelligence to understand. There is no third option.


Ok, I’ll break it down for you, as you clearly don’t have the mental capacity to realise what you’ve said yourself, let alone understand my post.

You’ve essentially just said that Hendry’s peak game was better than Ronnie’s peak game.

If you need me, or anyone else to explain things any further, I suggest you think twice about telling people they don’t have a certain level of intelligence simply because they don’t conform to your opinion. Take a second to use your brain before you next hit that Submit button. Seriously.


Why did you bother? More superfluous nonsense. This is identical to talking with Brexiteers about the benefits of Brexit. You have nothing constructive to add because you are incapable. That isn't your fault so don't be hard on yourself.



You are entitled to your wrong opinion


Ok mate. Enjoy your little moment <ok>

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby vodkadiet1

Pink Ball wrote:Stephen Hendry played 28 multi-session matches in ranking events and the Masters between 1997 and 2005 (from 28 on, as he entered his peak) against the big five I already mentioned.

He won nine of those matches.


I know you are just being awkward now. I know you are more intelligent than you are showing here.

HENDRY WAS RUBBISH IN THE LATTER PART OF HIS CAREER. SHALL I DRAW A DIAGRAM FOR YOU?

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby vodkadiet1

Pink Ball wrote:Was he?

I remember him being every bit as dominant against players outside that cohort between 1997 and 2005, when he was at his peak. But maybe I've misremembered.


Yes, you probably have. Not that it is relevant at all.

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby Pink Ball

Actually, I hadn't misremembered. He played 53 multi-session matches against players outside that cohort of five between 1997 and 2005. He won 44 of those matches (83%).

Of the nine he lost, three were in 2005 alone, so maybe his peak only lasted until 2004. In which case, his record is 38 out of 44 (87%).

But I know you argue that he gave up after 1999. So let's check from 2000 to 2005 and from 2000 to 2004.

He played 34 such matches between 2000 and 2005. He won 27 of those (79%).

If we exclude 2005, it's 25 matches. He won 21 (84%).

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby vodkadiet1

Pink Ball wrote:Actually, I hadn't misremembered. He played 53 multi-session matches against players outside that cohort of five between 1997 and 2005. He won 44 of those matches (83%).

Of the nine he lost, three were in 2005 alone, so maybe his peak only lasted until 2004. In which case, his record is 38 out of 44 (87%).

But I know you argue that he gave up after 1999. So let's check from 2000 to 2005 and from 2000 to 2004.

He played 34 such matches between 2000 and 2005. He won 27 of those (79%).

If we exclude 2005, it's 25 matches. He won 21 (84%).



There is no need to check. I have said Hendry became rubbish. Your stats are totally irrelevant.

I am sure you mean well but you are talking French when the lessons are in German.

Au revoir (bis bald).

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby vodkadiet1

Pink Ball wrote:No, you've misremembered, see? He was still as dominant as hell until he played against O'Sullivan, Higgins, Williams, Doherty and Ebdon. I think this has been most educational for you.


You are the one needing educating. Hendry's form from his dizzy heights fell by 20% and that is why he lost to players who couldn't beat him at his peak.

This is entry level stuff.

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby Iranu

vodkadiet1 wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:Actually, I hadn't misremembered. He played 53 multi-session matches against players outside that cohort of five between 1997 and 2005. He won 44 of those matches (83%).

Of the nine he lost, three were in 2005 alone, so maybe his peak only lasted until 2004. In which case, his record is 38 out of 44 (87%).

But I know you argue that he gave up after 1999. So let's check from 2000 to 2005 and from 2000 to 2004.

He played 34 such matches between 2000 and 2005. He won 27 of those (79%).

If we exclude 2005, it's 25 matches. He won 21 (84%).



There is no need to check. I have said Hendry became rubbish. Your stats are totally irrelevant.

I am sure you mean well but you are talking French when the lessons are in German.

Au revoir (bis bald).

Waaaaaaah

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby badtemperedcyril

I think it was Steve Davis who called Alex Higgins perhaps the one true genius snooker has had. A raw genius really. Not just the shots he played but the way he played them. Stephen Hendry often says about Alex that he’d find a difficult way to play an easy shot, simply because he could and it’s what made him buzz.

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby Dragonfly

Hendry was obviously a superb player. For a time his main rivals were Davis, White and Parrot. Davis was already a fading force. Hendry was clearly always a step ahead of White and Parrot.

He's probably unlucky in the sense that he was suddenly confronted by 3 extremely talented new opponents at the same time when the class of 92 arrived.

Any of the 3 on their own would have represented a huge threat. Faced by all 3, along with Ebdon and Doherty and Hendry's days at the top were clearly numbered. He did continue to compete at the top level. He came within 1 frame of winning the world's in 2002. But the standard that he dominated the 90s with wasn't good enough any longer. He suffered huge defeats to O'Sullivan in world semi finals and there was clearly a gulf in standards between the players.

I wish him well when he returns soon. But I feel there are dozens of players who are capable of demolishing him now. I hope it doesn't get embarrassing.

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby Pink Ball

vodkadiet1 wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:No, you've misremembered, see? He was still as dominant as hell until he played against O'Sullivan, Higgins, Williams, Doherty and Ebdon. I think this has been most educational for you.


You are the one needing educating. Hendry's form from his dizzy heights fell by 20% and that is why he lost to players who couldn't beat him at his peak.

This is entry level stuff.

But this simply isn’t true, pal. If I say there are 50 pages in a 30-page book, that doesn’t make it so.

Hendry’s record against players outside of the big five was more or less the same as his record as his record from 1990 to 1996. He won 87% of such matches. His record prior to then was 91%. Both are hugely impressive. Equally impressive, I think.

But while the game stood still outside of the top five, there were now three outstanding players and two very, very good players to contend with. Hendry was as good as ever could compete with them, no question, but he wasn’t the best anymore. Nowhere near it, sadly.

I appreciate that this is an inconvenient truth, but I encourage you to look beyond what you want to see and accept what is actually there to see. Science over feeling. Logic over fantasy.

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby vodkadiet1

Pink Ball wrote:
vodkadiet1 wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:No, you've misremembered, see? He was still as dominant as hell until he played against O'Sullivan, Higgins, Williams, Doherty and Ebdon. I think this has been most educational for you.


You are the one needing educating. Hendry's form from his dizzy heights fell by 20% and that is why he lost to players who couldn't beat him at his peak.

This is entry level stuff.

But this simply isn’t true, pal. If I say there are 50 pages in a 30-page book, that doesn’t make it so.

Hendry’s record against players outside of the big five was more or less the same as his record as his record from 1990 to 1996. He won 87% of such matches. His record prior to then was 91%. Both are hugely impressive. Equally impressive, I think.

But while the game stood still outside of the top five, there were now three outstanding players and two very, very good players to contend with. Hendry was as good as ever could compete with them, no question, but he wasn’t the best anymore. Nowhere near it, sadly.

I appreciate that this is an inconvenient truth, but I encourage you to look beyond what you want to see and accept what is actually there to see. Science over feeling. Logic over fantasy.


I used to coach tennis and there were some pupils who just had no co-ordination, couldn't understand what a backhand grip was if their life depended on it, could never understand topspin or slice, had no concept of footwork, were never going to improve one iota, and I was in fact just wasting my time. It was frustrating.

This is honestly what it has been like trying to explain the obvious to you on here.

I can now only assume you are on a wind up Pink Ball because I believe you are far more intelligent. You certainly had me going!!

:hatoff:

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby Iranu

vodkadiet1 wrote:I used to coach tennis and there were some pupils who just had no co-ordination, couldn't understand what a backhand grip was if their life depended on it, could never understand topspin or slice, had no concept of footwork, were never going to improve one iota, and I was in fact just wasting my time. It was frustrating.

This is honestly what it has been like trying to explain the obvious to you on here.

I can now only assume you are on a wind up Pink Ball because I believe you are far more intelligent. You certainly had me going!!

:hatoff:

How’s the veganism thread going? You know, your chance to help others do some good?

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby vodkadiet1

Iranu wrote:
vodkadiet1 wrote:I used to coach tennis and there were some pupils who just had no co-ordination, couldn't understand what a backhand grip was if their life depended on it, could never understand topspin or slice, had no concept of footwork, were never going to improve one iota, and I was in fact just wasting my time. It was frustrating.

This is honestly what it has been like trying to explain the obvious to you on here.

I can now only assume you are on a wind up Pink Ball because I believe you are far more intelligent. You certainly had me going!!

:hatoff:

How’s the veganism thread going? You know, your chance to do some good?


I have done enough good for over 3 decades by not being cruel to innocent beings.

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby Iranu

vodkadiet1 wrote:
Iranu wrote:
vodkadiet1 wrote:I used to coach tennis and there were some pupils who just had no co-ordination, couldn't understand what a backhand grip was if their life depended on it, could never understand topspin or slice, had no concept of footwork, were never going to improve one iota, and I was in fact just wasting my time. It was frustrating.

This is honestly what it has been like trying to explain the obvious to you on here.

I can now only assume you are on a wind up Pink Ball because I believe you are far more intelligent. You certainly had me going!!

:hatoff:

How’s the veganism thread going? You know, your chance to do some good?


I have done enough good for over 3 decades by not being cruel to innocent beings.

I edited, sorry. Meant to say “help others do some good”.

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby Pink Ball

vodkadiet1 wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:
vodkadiet1 wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:No, you've misremembered, see? He was still as dominant as hell until he played against O'Sullivan, Higgins, Williams, Doherty and Ebdon. I think this has been most educational for you.


You are the one needing educating. Hendry's form from his dizzy heights fell by 20% and that is why he lost to players who couldn't beat him at his peak.

This is entry level stuff.

But this simply isn’t true, pal. If I say there are 50 pages in a 30-page book, that doesn’t make it so.

Hendry’s record against players outside of the big five was more or less the same as his record as his record from 1990 to 1996. He won 87% of such matches. His record prior to then was 91%. Both are hugely impressive. Equally impressive, I think.

But while the game stood still outside of the top five, there were now three outstanding players and two very, very good players to contend with. Hendry was as good as ever could compete with them, no question, but he wasn’t the best anymore. Nowhere near it, sadly.

I appreciate that this is an inconvenient truth, but I encourage you to look beyond what you want to see and accept what is actually there to see. Science over feeling. Logic over fantasy.


I used to coach tennis and there were some pupils who just had no co-ordination, couldn't understand what a backhand grip was if their life depended on it, could never understand topspin or slice, had no concept of footwork, were never going to improve one iota, and I was in fact just wasting my time. It was frustrating.

This is honestly what it has been like trying to explain the obvious to you on here.

I can now only assume you are on a wind up Pink Ball because I believe you are far more intelligent. You certainly had me going!!

:hatoff:

Vodka, I like you, always have, but you’ve let yourself down here. I am showing you that 2+2=4, but you’re insisting that 2+2=5 as that’s how you remember it. “I think it was so, therefore it was’” is your mantra.


   

cron