Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

O'Sullivan v Hendry - Masters Pedigree

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • O'Sullivan v Hendry - Masters Pedigree

    If Ronnie equals Hendry's Masters record tomorrow(and I don't think he will), it will be an amazing achievement. But are the two's Masters records comparable?

    After all, Hendry won five in a row, including his tournament debut. On the other hand, he played fewer frames, as from 1996, the tournament gained its present format, early rounds becoming best of 11 and the final a best of 19, instead of best of 9 and 17. Were Hendry's opponents easier, harder or about the same as O'Sullivan's? One of the things that astonished me while researching this a bit, was just how much Jimmy White could have won if not for Hendry - year after year he got to the semis and got an absolute pasting. Likewise, I had no idea Griffiths had gone on so long - the idea of O'Sullivan playing El Tel is hilarious!

    Anyway, here are the two legends' respective records, starting with the most recent victory and from final to first round:

    Hendry

    1996 O'Sullivan, White, McManus, John Higgins
    1993 Wattana, McManus, Wilkinson, Doherty
    1992 Parrott, White, Dean Reynolds, Martin Clark
    1991 Mike Hallett, White, Tony Meo, Virgo
    1990 Parrott, White,Thorne, James,
    1989 Parrott, Davis, Griffiths, Thorne

    O'Sullivan

    2016 Hawkins, Bingham, Selby, Williams
    2014 Selby, Maguire,Walden, Milkins
    2009 Selby, Maguire. Carter, Perry
    2007 Ding, Maguire, Doherty, Carter
    2005 Higgins, White, Ding, Dott
    1995 Higgins, Ebdon, Griffiths, Parrott
    Last edited by gavpowell; 19th January 2016, 12:45 AM.

  • #2
    Ronnie winning over a longer time shows longevity. Hendry winning in a row shows utter dominance. Looking at those names I'd say Ronnie has faced tougher competition for sure.
    I actually think shorter formats make it harder to win for someone like hendry and Ronnie because the longer the match the less likely a fluke win will happen.

    Overall I'd say Ronnies would be more impressive based on the level of competition

    Comment


    • #3
      Updated to include the weekend's win. Really though? Only one reply? I was hoping for a few of the more knowledgeable members to provide a bit more context for Hendry's early wins.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by gavpowell View Post
        Updated to include the weekend's win. Really though? Only one reply? I was hoping for a few of the more knowledgeable members to provide a bit more context for Hendry's early wins.
        Really? With Thorne Grifiths and Parrot in there. The standard of most of Ronnie's opponents is far better than that of Hendry's.

        Comment


        • #5
          Everything progresses over time. You can't compare eras.

          Comment


          • #6
            hendry for me look who he played in 96

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by LucLex3119 View Post
              Really? With Thorne Grifiths and Parrot in there. The standard of most of Ronnie's opponents is far better than that of Hendry's.
              It's amazing that ROS has equaled Hendry's record given that he lost ten years to bi-polar. That's a fact, ask his trick cyclist. He should by dint of talent alone have 9 but life isn't like that. He was dealt some great cards being ambidextrous and born to a snooker table but that same wiring that makes him great also gives his a severe handicap. I couldn't play social snooker on 3hrs sleep and this guy beats the best in the world on it whilst juggling depression in his head.

              AMAZING!

              Comment


              • #8
                It's hard to judge, not just because of eras, but you have to take into account the form the players were in at the time. If you look at this years draw for Ronnie, current world champ , two ex world champs and Hawkins a tough opponent on top form, so when you look back in twenty years you would say he had a right tough draw,but appart from Williams( I suppose)none of the rest turned up,
                This is how you play darts ,MVG two nines in the same match!
                https://youtu.be/yqTGtwOpHu8

                Comment


                • #9
                  I am the biggest Hendry fan in the world. Machine.

                  I don't think you can judge eras. But if I had a gun to my head and was told to pick, I would say O Sullivan.

                  My argument for Hendry was always that in terms of records, he had the most of mostest. That's no longer the case. It's a coin toss right now.

                  But as Ronnie's still playing and playing at the top level at 40, showing no signs of abating. I would say not only is Ronnie's masters record superior, I'd say he is the best player of all time.

                  The first time I have ever said that, by the way.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by barrywhite View Post
                    It's amazing that ROS has equaled Hendry's record given that he lost ten years to bi-polar. That's a fact, ask his trick cyclist. He should by dint of talent alone have 9 but life isn't like that. He was dealt some great cards being ambidextrous and born to a snooker table but that same wiring that makes him great also gives his a severe handicap. I couldn't play social snooker on 3hrs sleep and this guy beats the best in the world on it whilst juggling depression in his head.

                    AMAZING!
                    I find this sort of excuse making really annoying. Like Jimmy would have won world championships if he hadn't been unlucky. No. Part of the overall package of being a great snooker player is turning up in a fit state (mentally and physically) to compete, and making the most of the opportunities when they present themselves.

                    Talented, creative people, often have deficiencies in other areas, as hard working 'robots' are often deficient in talent. We are what we are but it's all part of the jigsaw. You can only judge players in the context of the time. If Ronnie was so amazing and unplayable, he's have set new records. The truth is sometimes he isn't, and sometimes he can't even get himself to the venue.

                    Currently five times world champion ROS stands behind Reardon, Davis, and Hendry. That's the tale of the tape.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by tetricky View Post
                      I find this sort of excuse making really annoying. Like Jimmy would have won world championships if he hadn't been unlucky. No. Part of the overall package of being a great snooker player is turning up in a fit state (mentally and physically) to compete, and making the most of the opportunities when they present themselves.

                      Talented, creative people, often have deficiencies in other areas, as hard working 'robots' are often deficient in talent. We are what we are but it's all part of the jigsaw. You can only judge players in the context of the time. If Ronnie was so amazing and unplayable, he's have set new records. The truth is sometimes he isn't, and sometimes he can't even get himself to the venue.

                      Currently five times world champion ROS stands behind Reardon, Davis, and Hendry. That's the tale of the tape.
                      You forgot Joe Davis, surely the greatest with 15 wins? That's the problem with stats.

                      Ronnie's the greatest and every snooker player and pundit says so, even Hendry. Ronnie stands behind no-one. As Davis says, he's the only player who could be considered bigger than the game (Masters '16). Only Lindrum in billiards and Reyes in pool come close.
                      Last edited by barrywhite; 19th January 2016, 02:11 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I do too, but I didn't comment coz it looks like I'm picking on Barry.

                        I can't feel too sorry for O' Sullivan. Born to millionaire parents, was given the opportunity to pursue a career in a game he loved. I don't believe in the talent thing either, it's a myth. He's that good because he worked his socks off and had the determination to make himself into the God like cueist he is today.

                        As for the depression thing. Everyone has problems, depression is common. I know whenever I have problems and I turn up to work, it's never 'bring your problems to work day' it's always just 'work day'.

                        If I don't work, I don't get paid.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by pottr View Post
                          ....I don't believe in the talent thing either, it's a myth...
                          I know that the 'talent' argument is one that you don't buy. All I would say is that most of the people I know who are good players get down and have never had to think much about technique. They just hit the ball. They sight naturally. They can instinctively correct for how they bring the cue through. Of course they have to work their arses off to be a decent standard...side by side i did the same, and never really got any good. Why?

                          If me and ronnie had worked our arses off to exactly the same level, I can absolutely assure you that I would be nowhere near the same player. There is a whole professional body of players that prove that point.

                          I describe that difference, the 'thing' that allows some people to 'get' things better than others, as talent.

                          As for the Troll, I try not to address him. It just feeds the fire. Like his contention that World Champion Challenges bear any relation to annual tournaments. It just comes acroos as needy attention seeking. The inability to fail to comment or attempt to stir up conflict. Like non-sweary tourettes.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I describe that difference, the 'thing' that allows some people to 'get' things better than others, as talent.
                            Yes, I can concede that. You are 100% right.

                            I forget this is a snooker forum. Some people on the street assume that ROS just picked up a cue and was instantly what he is today.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by pottr View Post
                              Yes, I can concede that. You are 100% right.

                              I forget this is a snooker forum. Some people on the street assume that ROS just picked up a cue and was instantly what he is today.
                              Many people on the street, in pubs playing pool know the Ronnie story. We all know he obsessed perfecting the Davis set-up and technique down to chalking his tip. Every player has to put in the practice to maximise talent. But sometimes, someone comes along who is simply head and shoulders above the rest by dint of natural ability. If natural ability only gives them 1% extra, that's enough. Ronnie is that person in snooker. 147s with his other hand. Defeating someone at the Worlds with his other hand. Maxi in 5mins, that legendary 92 break. Other pros can do similar, but they can't do it so often or so easily. Look at your mate Selty, a great player you say and I'm not arguing. Ronnie destroyed him. You can only do that on the big stage if you have some special weapons and belief in those weapons. There are people like Bingo who practise 40+hrs a week, Ronnie still beats them and he hasn't played a comp for 8mths. If it's only about work, how come folk like Selty can't break through to the top 16? It's about mental weapons as well as work and natural ability.

                              No other pro ever took a year off and won the Worlds or took 8mths off and won the Masters. No-one else can do this because there's only one snooker Genius. Genius = work + talent + mental ability/toughness. Ronnie maximises this equation. We wait for the next one, maybe Judd if he sorts his technique.

                              As for those who personally insult, like tetricky here, oh dear. Failed person. lol Hendry won his titles in closed shop era, like Davis, not a true open field that we have today. His titles are worth a bit more than Joe's but not as much as the class of 92's, who tucked him up in bed and gave him a dummy to get over his foibles. lol
                              Last edited by barrywhite; 19th January 2016, 02:50 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X