O'Sullivan v Hendry - Masters Pedigree

[barrywhite]

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.

[j6uk]

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

[tetricky]

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.

[pottr]

O'Sullivan v Hendry - Masters Pedigree

yes... so far

[golferson123]

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

[Odrl]

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... :wink:

[pottr]

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.

[barrywhite]

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

[pottr]

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.

[tetricky]

....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.

[pottr]

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.

[barrywhite]

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.

[tetricky]

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.

[pottr]

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.

[itsnoteasy]

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,