O'Sullivan v Hendry - Masters Pedigree

[golferson123]

If you ask Ronnie how good Hendry was he would tell you he was the greatest. this might be over all a stronger era throughout the whole rankings but the top 8 is full of mentally weak players who get chances against Ronnie but don't take them. Hendry would not be scared of Ronnie like the other players are and if peak Hendry was around today he would be runaway number 1 as Ronnie doesn't play enough.

that will upset the ronnie lovers lol, but i think you are right

[richproc]

If you ask Ronnie how good Hendry was he would tell you he was the greatest. this might be over all a stronger era throughout the whole rankings but the top 8 is full of mentally weak players who get chances against Ronnie but don't take them. Hendry would not be scared of Ronnie like the other players are and if peak Hendry was around today he would be runaway number 1 as Ronnie doesn't play enough.

[vilkrang]

Hendry generally steam rollered people long before final frame deciders, especially Ronnie lol. I too prefer facts...

If you like facts, you'd notice that Ronnie has a winning head to head record against Hendry, and the biggest winning margin between the two was when Ronnie beat Hendry at the semis of the World's.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Check out final frame decider stats. Ronnie is far superior in that regard so I don't think your argument holds up (unless you take facts out of the equation and just go on gut feeling, I prefer facts though).

I couldn't stand Hendry when he was playing, loved watching his decline in the 2000s, was dismayed when I learned he was to join the BBC commentary team but he has won me over since retiring, probably the best commentator they have now and seems like a decent bloke now that he isn't competing.

Hendry generally steam rollered people long before final frame deciders, especially Ronnie lol. I too prefer facts...

I can't see what everyone else does when it comes to Hendry's commentary. He's the worst there is, both as commentator or pundit. He rarely says anything, which puts pressure on the co-commentator to fill the void, which is why you get the likes of taylor never S'ingTFU.

Agree he seems less of an arrogant twat these days, however.

[vilkrang]

I think of them as this: Hendry got stronger as the pressure increased and Ronnie gets weaker.

Hendry clear winner for me. Couldn't stand the man but he was an absolute beast.

Check out final frame decider stats. Ronnie is far superior in that regard so I don't think your argument holds up (unless you take facts out of the equation and just go on gut feeling, I prefer facts though).

I couldn't stand Hendry when he was playing, loved watching his decline in the 2000s, was dismayed when I learned he was to join the BBC commentary team but he has won me over since retiring, probably the best commentator they have now and seems like a decent bloke now that he isn't competing.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

I think of them as this: Hendry got stronger as the pressure increased and Ronnie gets weaker.

Hendry clear winner for me. Couldn't stand the man but he was an absolute beast.

[vilkrang]

Hendry didn't win any of snooker's 3 majors after the 90s. He was only 31 at the start of the 2000s. Since Ronnie turned 31 he has won 2 UK Championships, 4 Masters and 3 Worlds, in an era that is ridiculously more competitive than the 90s. Just look at the difference in scoring and the number of centuries made (or frames per century if you're going to bring out the argument that more matches are played). Players win frames in one visit far more often than they did in the 90s.

Hendry was dominant in a weak era but once the competition started to get close to his level he started bottling it at key moments which is partly why he never won a major after the end of the 90s. Ronnie has been more consistent over a longer period and has had more success in the more recent era where it's clear that the competition is of a much higher level.

Ronnie also has the highest win percentage in final frame deciders (for players who have played a significant number of deciders) which shows he has great bottle.

I too would love to have seen Ronnie, Higgins and Hendry all playing at their peak at the same time. I don't think Hendry would have would 7 world titles but it's all ifs and buts, he did win those 7 world titles and therefore that's the mark to beat.

But regularly winning majors for 23 years and doing so in a stronger era marks Ronnie out as being ahead, he's only behind in terms of world titles and it's not inconceivable that he could win two more.

What is absolutely certain is that if Ronnie wins two more World's then there won't even be an argument to make any more (he's already equal on UK and Master's victories).

And here is a good page to illustrate how much tougher this era is, look how many older players feature on this list, or players from the 90s (not many):

http://cuetracker.net/Statistics/Poi...reaks/All-time

However, in defence of Hendry, is that I highly doubt anyone will ever win 7 world titles in a decade again (or even 6, as Davis did) or win 5 Masters in a row, so the dominance of Hendry is unlikely to ever be equalled, especially with a more level playing field these days.

Edit: I realise I went a bit off topic, anyway back on topic, as I've said I don't think anyone will win 5 Masters in a row again but Ronnie has had to beat better players to win his titles. A strong case can be made for either.

[golferson123]

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

[Ramon]

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

[Ramon]

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 .:snooker:

[golferson123]

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?

[itsnoteasy]

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.

[barrywhite]

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!

[Ramon]

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.

[pottr]

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. :/