Are they both "geniuses" ?

Pink Ball wrote:

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!!

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.

Holden Chinaski wrote:Ronnie at his best is by far the best the game has ever seen. I've never heard any snooker player or pundit say otherwise. It's obvious. Hendry was brilliant, but Ronnie at his best is another level.

vodkadiet1 wrote:

Holden Chinaski wrote:Ronnie at his best is by far the best the game has ever seen. I've never heard any snooker player or pundit say otherwise. It's obvious. Hendry was brilliant, but Ronnie at his best is another level.

The only thing that is obvious is that you're a moron. Why aren't you watching the final? Your lover boy is playing.

Holden Chinaski wrote:

vodkadiet1 wrote:

Holden Chinaski wrote:Ronnie at his best is by far the best the game has ever seen. I've never heard any snooker player or pundit say otherwise. It's obvious. Hendry was brilliant, but Ronnie at his best is another level.

The only thing that is obvious is that you're a moron. Why aren't you watching the final? Your lover boy is playing.

What is obvious is that you hate Ronnie, probably because he's successful and you're a loser. I am a Hendry fan as well, by the way. Great player. But not as good as Ronnie.

vodkadiet1 wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:

vodkadiet1 wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:

vodkadiet1 wrote:
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!!

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.

Are you still persevering with this rubbish?

I will explain it one final time to see if I can penetrate your ivory dome.

When Hendry was playing at his peak he played at a higher level than any other player has. I am not talking about for spurts of 4 or 5 frames. I am talking about over a period of several years. He had periods in those years when he played terrible at times but he tended to peak when it mattered most. And thus he was so dominant for this period of time. When he won The World Championship in 1999 he was under the most pressure he had been under. He was trying to surpass Steve Davis and Ray Reardon's world championship haul of 6 titles each. The other semi finalists were Higgins, Williams, and O'Sullivan who were all the same age, well established, and in their prime and Hendry was slightly past his best and yet Hendry rose to the magnitude of the occasion and defeated O'Sullivan and Williams in the semis and final.

Hendry certainly declined significantly after that moment and even though he won the occasional title he was a pale shadow of the dominant figure he was in the mid 90s.

If it were to be detailed in a graph Hendry was consistently at 9.5/10 for several years, which fell away to 7/10 for a period and then further down to 6/10. O'Sullivan has always been at least 8.5/10 and often up to 9/10 but has never consistently reached the level of the 9.5/10 that Hendry did.

You could compare it with people earning a living. A city whizz kid earns £100million and retires at 30 and a Managing Director of a company over his life earns £300 million and retires at 65 but he never earned anywhere as much as the city whizz kid had when he was 30.

In terms of longevity O'Sullivan wins by a country mile.


If you cannot grasp this then I am unable to help you further.

But please feel free to post another catalogue of meaningless stats that you wrongly believe to help prove a point that will completely disregard the irrefutable evidence that I have provided.

Prop wrote:The thing all but one of us can take from this thread is that Vodka repeatedly conflates opinion with fact, and ironically attempts to correlate a differing opinion with a question of intelligence. And he’s not particularly pleasant about it, either. A vegan with a crippling superiority complex... shock, horror! It’s a stereotype that you just can’t help reinforcing all by yourself.

Speaking of ivory, Vodka, enjoy it up in your tower on your own, won’t you. If you’re completely genuine in everything you write on here, it’s rather odd, and quite unnerving. If, on the other hand, it’s a means of you exercising some mild trolling, well I’d have to applaud you. I can assure you, the vast majority of posters on here find it impossible to take you seriously.

Do keep it going though, you are amusing, whether that’s intentional or not

vodkadiet1 wrote:

Prop wrote:The thing all but one of us can take from this thread is that Vodka repeatedly conflates opinion with fact, and ironically attempts to correlate a differing opinion with a question of intelligence. And he’s not particularly pleasant about it, either. A vegan with a crippling superiority complex... shock, horror! It’s a stereotype that you just can’t help reinforcing all by yourself.

Speaking of ivory, Vodka, enjoy it up in your tower on your own, won’t you. If you’re completely genuine in everything you write on here, it’s rather odd, and quite unnerving. If, on the other hand, it’s a means of you exercising some mild trolling, well I’d have to applaud you. I can assure you, the vast majority of posters on here find it impossible to take you seriously.

Do keep it going though, you are amusing, whether that’s intentional or not

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag1o3koTLWM

vodkadiet1 wrote:Are you still persevering with this rubbish?

I will explain it one final time to see if I can penetrate your ivory dome.

When Hendry was playing at his peak he played at a higher level than any other player has. I am not talking about for spurts of 4 or 5 frames. I am talking about over a period of several years. He had periods in those years when he played terrible at times but he tended to peak when it mattered most. And thus he was so dominant for this period of time. When he won The World Championship in 1999 he was under the most pressure he had been under. He was trying to surpass Steve Davis and Ray Reardon's world championship haul of 6 titles each. The other semi finalists were Higgins, Williams, and O'Sullivan who were all the same age, well established, and in their prime and Hendry was slightly past his best and yet Hendry rose to the magnitude of the occasion and defeated O'Sullivan and Williams in the semis and final.

Hendry certainly declined significantly after that moment and even though he won the occasional title he was a pale shadow of the dominant figure he was in the mid 90s.

If it were to be detailed in a graph Hendry was consistently at 9.5/10 for several years, which fell away to 7/10 for a period and then further down to 6/10. O'Sullivan has always been at least 8.5/10 and often up to 9/10 but has never consistently reached the level of the 9.5/10 that Hendry did.

You could compare it with people earning a living. A city whizz kid earns £100million and retires at 30 and a Managing Director of a company over his life earns £300 million and retires at 65 but he never earned anywhere as much as the city whizz kid had when he was 30.

In terms of longevity O'Sullivan wins by a country mile.


If you cannot grasp this then I am unable to help you further.

But please feel free to post another catalogue of meaningless stats that you wrongly believe to help prove a point that will completely disregard the irrefutable evidence that I have provided.

Holden Chinaski wrote:Youngest player ever to win a ranking title (beating Steve Davis and prime Hendry in the UK Championship when he was 17 years old).

Youngest player ever to win The Masters (at 19 years old).

Second-oldest player (after Ray Reardon) to win a World Championship title in snooker's modern era.

Holds the record for the most career centuries and is the only player to have achieved 1,000 century breaks.

The highest number of officially recognized maximum breaks in professional competition, with 15, and the fastest competitive maximum break, compiled in a time of 5 minutes and 8 seconds at the 1997 World Championship.

The most successful player in the history of snooker's Triple Crown Series, with a record 20 titles.

Holds the record for most UK Championship titles (7)

Holds the record for most Masters titles (7).

Only player to make five centuries in a best of nine match.

Longest gap between first and most recent ranking titles (27 years).

Highest career match-win percentage out of all the top players with 75.15%

Six World Championship titles.

Described by Stephen Hendry as "the best player in the world by a country mile".

Nuff said.

Prop wrote:

vodkadiet1 wrote:

Prop wrote:The thing all but one of us can take from this thread is that Vodka repeatedly conflates opinion with fact, and ironically attempts to correlate a differing opinion with a question of intelligence. And he’s not particularly pleasant about it, either. A vegan with a crippling superiority complex... shock, horror! It’s a stereotype that you just can’t help reinforcing all by yourself.

Speaking of ivory, Vodka, enjoy it up in your tower on your own, won’t you. If you’re completely genuine in everything you write on here, it’s rather odd, and quite unnerving. If, on the other hand, it’s a means of you exercising some mild trolling, well I’d have to applaud you. I can assure you, the vast majority of posters on here find it impossible to take you seriously.

Do keep it going though, you are amusing, whether that’s intentional or not

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag1o3koTLWM

I need to get round to watching that.