Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

O'Sullivan v Hendry - Masters Pedigree

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

  • #16
    It never occurred to another pro to try. It's not like Ronnie wasn't practising in that year off.

    Hendry would have had the stones to do the same between 91 - 95. He always practices alone anyway.

    Comment


    • #17
      Just to add to the "8 months off" discussion, John Higgins was away from the game for more than 7 months before winning the 2010 UK Championship, his first event back from suspension. He then added the Welsh Open and the World title in what was left of that season, but for some reason the comparison with O'Sullivan's absence is never made...

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by pottr View Post
        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.
        so far! Not any time

        Comment


        • #19
          O'Sullivan v Hendry - Masters Pedigree

          yes... so far

          Comment


          • #20
            If you consider about results and consistency, it's Hendry. If you talk about players being unplayable at a moment in time then people like MJW and Higgins (both) come into the fray. If you take a hybrid of both, it's O'Sullivan.

            Comment


            • #21
              rons cast a spell over the other players as far in ding, robertson, murphy, judd, selby.
              selbys got close to getting to him and he had trouble with ding when he was ushered in, but ronnies turned that around off/on the table in many ways. hes prasing how good they are and congratulating them in interviews when he wins at the same time as saying hes in bits. he did that thing with higgins by calling him an under achiever, clever guy. higgins struggles with ron now
              higgins aside, once he feels he can't win with a few of the above he'll disappear

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by j6uk View Post
                rons cast a spell over the other players as far in ding, robertson, murphy, judd, selby.
                selbys got close to getting to him and he had trouble with ding when he was ushered in, but ronnies turned that around off/on the table in many ways. hes prasing how good they are and congratulating them in interviews when he wins at the same time as saying hes in bits. he did that thing with higgins by calling him an under achiever, clever guy. higgins struggles with ron now
                higgins aside, once he feels he can't win with a few of the above he'll disappear
                Yep, we were all hoping that Ding would take the break builders title off Ronnie because his touch in the balls is second to none on form, I think he has 7 maxis so far? Now he's pissing around with his cue and this and that cue when any sane person would simply get Uncle John to make an Ultimate then get on with playing great snooker with the best cue that can be made............................

                So, anyway! Ding needs to sort himself out mentally and love the game again. He's done well to get into shape, hats off for that. No more junk food.

                Joe: Invite/closed shop era
                RR: Yeah, there must have been at least a dozen pros somewhere!
                Davis: Semi-pro, top 16 protected era with lots of bad apples chucking matches
                Hendry: same as Davis
                Ronnie: Competing with Hendry, MJW, Higgins, Lee then on to Judd, Robbo, Smurf, Ding, in an internationally competitive era with qualification by the top 16 for most tournaments and a chance of the top 128 to make the TV stages of most comps.

                No contest, Ronnie has played in the ONLY era that is competitive by definition. Ray Reardon's and Hendry's eras, protected, beating cardboard cut outs.
                Last edited by barrywhite; 19th January 2016, 05:57 PM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  O'Sullivan v Hendry - Masters Pedigree

                  Yeah... I don't know what Joe Davis and Ray Reardon were playing at?

                  They should have thought about it a bit more and started playing in this era. :/

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by pottr View Post
                    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.
                    are u saying sumone like mozart or Beethoven, they had no talent?? ( do'nt get me wrong , It is not a criticism to ur post , it's just a question ).
                    of crs, that's music. but I don't think snooker is an exception.
                    I'm with you that talent alone is not enough and you have to put sum hard work i to it. But in the end, someone who is talented and he works hard for his purpose, can achieve more compared to someone with no talent. ROS is an clear example of that .
                    also agree with you that money is a major factor. If you have to work all day, then you have not mutch time for practice.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Ramon View Post
                      are u saying sumone like mozart or Beethoven, they had no talent?? ( do'nt get me wrong , It is not a criticism to ur post , it's just a question ).
                      of crs, that's music. but I don't think snooker is an exception.
                      I'm with you that talent alone is not enough and you have to put sum hard work i to it. But in the end, someone who is talented and he works hard for his purpose, can achieve more compared to someone with no talent. ROS is an clear example of that .
                      also agree with you that money is a major factor. If you have to work all day, then you have not mutch time for practice.
                      Ronnie is like Mozart in so many mental ways, both psychologically faulted, massively gifted, though ROS ain't plagued with dodgy sexual diseases like Amadeus was, dirty scoundrel. Hendry was Beethoven in a past life, strong character, tutored by Haydn (very lucky there Ludwig). Who you prefer is up to you. Me, I'd go for Jimmy if I could only watch one player on my table, the Chopin of the snooker world! Davis was Bach, talented and boring, funerial.

                      Hendry was totally found out by the Class of 92. In his early 30s (that's not old, ask Bingo) MJW totally destroyed him, as would Higgins and ROS. He's thinking to himself, hang on, these three ain't on crack, how do I Copeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! All he talks about now is 'my records'. He doesn't know the youngsters, doesn't meet them and doesn't compete with them. Ronnie has the show, knows em, beats em.

                      Ronnie, the first genius of snooker. And the first player to be bigger than the game! My mate who beat him 3-1 (and MJW by the same score) agrees, he's the best ever, by some distance too. People who slag him and say he ain't, they haven't even played him!
                      Last edited by barrywhite; 19th January 2016, 06:19 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I know it's a bit daft to say this but I would have loved Hendry ,Higgins and Osullivan to have been at the very top of their game at the same time, I think we would have seen the very best of all three of them as they pushed each other on to new heights . I always have a nagging feeling that once Hendry went down hill and Higgins lost it Ronnie had no one to push him and he eventually lost interest, maybe Hendry wouldn't have the records he holds now if they were all around at the same time as things would have been more shared between them but by god it would have been a truely great era for snooker.
                        This is how you play darts ,MVG two nines in the same match!
                        https://youtu.be/yqTGtwOpHu8

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by barrywhite View Post
                          Ronnie is like Mozart in so many mental ways, both psychologically faulted, massively gifted, though ROS ain't plagued with dodgy sexual diseases like Amadeus was, dirty scoundrel. Hendry was Beethoven in a past life, strong character, tutored by Haydn (very lucky there Ludwig). Who you prefer is up to you. Me, I'd go for Jimmy if I could only watch one player on my table, the Chopin of the snooker world! Davis was Bach, talented and boring, funerial.

                          Hendry was totally found out by the Class of 92. In his early 30s (that's not old, ask Bingo) MJW totally destroyed him, as would Higgins and ROS. He's thinking to himself, hang on, these three ain't on crack, how do I Copeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! All he talks about now is 'my records'. He doesn't know the youngsters, doesn't meet them and doesn't compete with them. Ronnie has the show, knows em, beats em.

                          Ronnie, the first genius of snooker. And the first player to be bigger than the game! My mate who beat him 3-1 (and MJW by the same score) agrees, he's the best ever, by some distance too. People who slag him and say he ain't, they haven't even played him!
                          total lack of respect for a great player! you sure have plenty of mates who are pros or semi pros, care to name a few?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by barrywhite View Post
                            Ronnie is like Mozart in so many mental ways, both psychologically faulted, massively gifted, though ROS ain't plagued with dodgy sexual diseases like Amadeus was, dirty scoundrel. Hendry was Beethoven in a past life, strong character, tutored by Haydn (very lucky there Ludwig). Who you prefer is up to you. Me, I'd go for Jimmy if I could only watch one player on my table, the Chopin of the snooker world! Davis was Bach, talented and boring, funerial.

                            Hendry was totally found out by the Class of 92. In his early 30s (that's not old, ask Bingo) MJW totally destroyed him, as would Higgins and ROS. He's thinking to himself, hang on, these three ain't on crack, how do I Copeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! All he talks about now is 'my records'. He doesn't know the youngsters, doesn't meet them and doesn't compete with them. Ronnie has the show, knows em, beats em.

                            Ronnie, the first genius of snooker. And the first player to be bigger than the game! My mate who beat him 3-1 (and MJW by the same score) agrees, he's the best ever, by some distance too. People who slag him and say he ain't, they haven't even played him!
                            well, I can certainly see that you're a fan of ROS my friend. Nothing wrong with that.
                            He is a good player an i hope he keeps playing so we can enjoy of watching sum snooker .

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              of crs, if u ask me , I would say, Hendry was a more consistent player . ( just my opinion ).

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by barrywhite View Post
                                Yep, we were all hoping that Ding would take the break builders title off Ronnie because his touch in the balls is second to none on form, I think he has 7 maxis so far? Now he's pissing around with his cue and this and that cue when any sane person would simply get Uncle John to make an Ultimate then get on with playing great snooker with the best cue that can be made............................

                                So, anyway! Ding needs to sort himself out mentally and love the game again. He's done well to get into shape, hats off for that. No more junk food.

                                Joe: Invite/closed shop era
                                RR: Yeah, there must have been at least a dozen pros somewhere!
                                Davis: Semi-pro, top 16 protected era with lots of bad apples chucking matches
                                Hendry: same as Davis
                                Ronnie: Competing with Hendry, MJW, Higgins, Lee then on to Judd, Robbo, Smurf, Ding, in an internationally competitive era with qualification by the top 16 for most tournaments and a chance of the top 128 to make the TV stages of most comps.

                                No contest, Ronnie has played in the ONLY era that is competitive by definition. Ray Reardon's and Hendry's eras, protected, beating cardboard cut outs.
                                you sir are a prize muppet! you have rubbished joe, ray,hendry and davies all in one go, your lack of knowledge knows no bounds

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X