Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Opinion on Ronnie declining the 147?

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

  • Hello, Mr Big Shot
    replied
    Originally Posted by Hatcherjob View Post
    Issues like this reflect far greater on us than it does on the artist. It certainly shows what political parties everyone votes for. I remember Tony Wilson used to tell Shaun Ryder he was a true poet and Ryder would dismiss this, as he had no education in poetry. In much the same way, I don't think Ronnie understands he is an artist and quite articulates the artistic statements he makes, simply because as a snooker player, he does not fit the profile. However, what he did yesterday was very akin to the artistic merits of KLF burning a million pound on an island and the 'Leeds 13' holiday-grant fiasco... he was holding a mirror at us. We in the west have a very unhealthy obsession with money, in the way an anorexic has for food. As far as I am aware, nobody in the history of professional snooker has made a 147 and donated the money to charity. If John Higgins made a 147 yesterday, where do you think it would have gone? Straight in to his bank account. And the same for Ronnie. So this idea that the money could have gone to charity is an entirely extraneous point of view. Incidentally, that 10k is still in existence, just in the sponsor's pocket, rather than a player's, can't they donate it?

    So here, we have an all too rare sports personality, putting principle before money, but we don't applaud that. We live in a magazine culture where figureheads climb and fall an imaginary ranking ladder of popularity and we cue up to judge them and comment, and the rise and falls can be dramatic. Ronaldo earns preposterous amounts controlled in turn by his ego, and we hate him for it. He donates a weeks wage to a sick child and suddenly he's a superhero. This modest act creates with it an influx of parroting social media commentators to come forth with great adulation, usually reserved for dying soldiers. But when we certify them improper, we get sanctimonious phrases like - "He's gone down in my estimation".

    When money is either destroyed or squandered, we feel distraught, We do so because it is like they are burning our dreams and desires "Imagine what I could do with that". Yet, what somebody chooses to do with their money, really has nothing to do with us. Our self importance over somebody else's business is sickening. Ronnie has given us an abundance of joy over the years, with his genius comes madness, as it always does. So the argument that fans paid money and should have been duly rewarded with the 147 is moot. As a music fan, this reminds me of some of the enigmas I have watched live over time. They can arrive late, or not turn up at all. The next week, they reveal their unbridled genius and you excuse them, this is what you invested your interest in. On the contrary, if you spend good money on Metallica, you will always get value for money, because they provide pyrotechnics. So you are responsible for which artist you would prefer to see. If you pay to watch Shaun Murphy, then expect ultimate professionalism and robotic personality, you won't be disappointed. If you pay to watch an unpredictable enigma, then expect unpredictable enigmatic things.

    By the way, what a masterstroke by Hearn to change his viewpoint today. Initially, it was no surprise to hear his condemnation. I doubt a man motivated by money would understand the artistic merit of another man forfeiting cash to make a point, that is not a language he understands. However, I think he realised last night that he was losing the battle. He has tried to turn the tables today with backhanded compliments and instead put the focus on the headlines Ronnie has made for snooker, which is a canny move.

    Ultimately, we forgive geniuses when the dust settles and we understand it was all in the name of entertainment. Alex Higgins has been forgiven of nearly everything he ever did. Geniuses are rightly excused in the end. It also shows us how spurious our personal offence to said incidents are.
    I bet the KLF have kicked themselves every single day for the past 22 years lol.

    Leave a comment:


  • daffie
    replied
    Originally Posted by itsnoteasy View Post
    Without fans there is no sport, that's just a fact, empty venues tv soon pulls out, no tv no sponsors. So what are you entitled to see for your ticket money, Ronnie just thrashing the balls around like he did in the German masters because he couldnt be arsed? Is that good for the game, is he bothered about his fans, or just himself, anyone who thinks these top players don't have a responsibility to the game don't like snooker they just like Ronnie and they are the reason the game is dying, self interested just out for what they can get, feck the good of the game, I just love Ronnie he's such a character, he can do no wrong. I don't beleive in the excuse that because you are good at something you should be excused from poor behaviour, that just encourages it, and sets a poor example to the next generation.
    Wholeheartedly agree!

    Btw...just because you are a character doesn't mean that you have character (infamous words of Mr Wolf)
    Last edited by daffie; 16 February 2016, 05:43 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • daffie
    replied
    Btw how much the World of snooker has changed since BH took over. Former chairman of WPBSA said at that time...

    Earlier, World Snooker chairman Walker defended his decision to allow O'Sullivan to waive his media duties. Walker said he agreed the concession for fear O'Sullivan would boycott the event but added: "No sportsman is bigger than the sport itself, and that includes Ronnie."

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-430414/Ding-left-tears-race-row-mars-OSullivan-Masters-final-win.html

    Leave a comment:


  • daffie
    replied
    Originally Posted by scottley View Post
    Thats a very different arguement.
    It's just my 0.02 and opinion on ROS.

    The only completely non-egotistical thing imo he ever did was showing compassion and comforting Ding at his 10-3 defeat in the 2006-2007 Masters Final, and calling out his 'fans' saying 'why don't you just leave, nobody wants you here' (or words to that effect).
    Last edited by daffie; 16 February 2016, 05:34 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • itsnoteasy
    replied
    Without fans there is no sport, that's just a fact, empty venues tv soon pulls out, no tv no sponsors. So what are you entitled to see for your ticket money, Ronnie just thrashing the balls around like he did in the German masters because he couldnt be arsed? Is that good for the game, is he bothered about his fans, or just himself, anyone who thinks these top players don't have a responsibility to the game don't like snooker they just like Ronnie and they are the reason the game is dying, self interested just out for what they can get, feck the good of the game, I just love Ronnie he's such a character, he can do no wrong. I don't beleive in the excuse that because you are good at something you should be excused from poor behaviour, that just encourages it, and sets a poor example to the next generation.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dave Walton
    replied
    Originally Posted by acpc89 View Post
    I find it amazingly strange how people feel so offended as though they were entitled to watch a 147. Also the fact that people keep mentioning the poor fans who have paid their hard earn cash to see Ronnie play and deserve the 147. No, they do not. You pay for what you get, and whether he got beat 4:1 today or won 4:1 with 4 147's or not its what you get. No one deserves anything when watching snooker. However when you pay or just watch Ronnie playing, chances are your going to be entertained more so than other players.

    I do think he would of made the 147 had the audience/fans not been irritating him so much in the early stages of the match. But that's neither here nor there. I feel somewhat happy that he didnt make the 147, because had he done so, it would of just been another 147. With the usual superlatives 'genius', 'amazing', 'mozart of snooker' been used. Since he didnt make a 147, its now causing more lines to be written about snooker and himself which can only be good.

    Also, people who keep moaning about 10k is a massive amount of cash for the hard working public, so what? I've never even had close to a quarter of that amount! And I do not feel hard done by, neither should anyone else. Ronnie is not a normal average Joe Bloggs. He can make more money away from Snooker yet chooses to play. As Barry Hearn recently said, no one player is bigger than any sport, but Ronnie is the closest it will ever be.

    People should just enjoy watching him play, regardless of his on table antics. As there won't be another player like him.
    Spot on!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • scottley
    replied
    Originally Posted by daffie View Post
    Loser...maybe not so. T0sser...oh yes, very much so.
    Thats a very different arguement.

    Leave a comment:


  • tedisbill
    replied
    Hatcherjob:

    What a well written post. I agree with everything you said there.

    Leave a comment:


  • daffie
    replied
    Loser...maybe not so. T0sser...oh yes, very much so.

    Leave a comment:


  • acpc89
    replied
    @Hatcherjob - Ronnie donated the prize money for his 147 at the World Open in 2010 to Charity.

    The money the game receives from tickets sold I'm sure is peanuts, they practically give away most tickets now just to get crowds in. The money they receive that they need for the tournaments is from the sponsors for promoting their brand. So again, anyone saying the hard working paying public are owed anything are just blinded by self entitlement. Yes without fans, there would be no sport. But look at China events, no one turns up to watch them yet millions watch. Most people dont even pay to watch eurosport or even bbc as they stream content online. Fans turning up to the venues is probably less than 0.1% of total viewing figures. So it's misleading to say without them there is no money for the players.

    Leave a comment:


  • scottley
    replied
    Loser, yeah you can call a 5 time world champ that hahaha, what a load of rubbish!

    Leave a comment:


  • The Maestro
    replied
    Think you've taken to many of the crockets bipolar pills pal! A working class game, this self righteous prophecy belongs on an Oxbridge forum. I for one won't forgive Ronnie anything, he is a loser, extremely talented but a loser with the heart of a pea! Give me hendry, ebdon or even the champ Bingham serving it up to him any day!

    Leave a comment:


  • Porter
    replied
    I have been watching a lot of snooker for two years now. I am totally fascinated by the complexity of the game and frankly I can't believe more people don't get into it as much as they do with other sports. Just to add my two cents about Ronnie O'Sullivan...as long as he is following the rules it is his business to play which shot when and how he wants to play it. When Ronnie was not playing earlier this season I wasn't nearly as interested in watching, the excitement just wasn't there and imho he adds a huge amount of interest to the game and I for one hope he continues to play for a long time. As others above have said careful what you wish for because once Ronnie doesn't play anymore snooker will not be the same.

    Leave a comment:


  • itsnoteasy
    replied
    I love the way Osullivan plays, for me on top form he is pretty much unplayable. I don't agree with folk who say he owes the game or the folk who pay his wages nowt, they wouldn't have a career if those fans didn't pay to watch them or sponsors shelling out to be associated with the game, so they owe them everything, no point in being the best snooker player ever if no one is willing to pay to watch you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hatcherjob
    replied
    Issues like this reflect far greater on us than it does on the artist. It certainly shows what political parties everyone votes for. I remember Tony Wilson used to tell Shaun Ryder he was a true poet and Ryder would dismiss this, as he had no education in poetry. In much the same way, I don't think Ronnie understands he is an artist and quite articulates the artistic statements he makes, simply because as a snooker player, he does not fit the profile. However, what he did yesterday was very akin to the artistic merits of KLF burning a million pound on an island and the 'Leeds 13' holiday-grant fiasco... he was holding a mirror at us. We in the west have a very unhealthy obsession with money, in the way an anorexic has for food. As far as I am aware, nobody in the history of professional snooker has made a 147 and donated the money to charity. If John Higgins made a 147 yesterday, where do you think it would have gone? Straight in to his bank account. And the same for Ronnie. So this idea that the money could have gone to charity is an entirely extraneous point of view. Incidentally, that 10k is still in existence, just in the sponsor's pocket, rather than a player's, can't they donate it?

    So here, we have an all too rare sports personality, putting principle before money, but we don't applaud that. We live in a magazine culture where figureheads climb and fall an imaginary ranking ladder of popularity and we cue up to judge them and comment, and the rise and falls can be dramatic. Ronaldo earns preposterous amounts controlled in turn by his ego, and we hate him for it. He donates a weeks wage to a sick child and suddenly he's a superhero. This modest act creates with it an influx of parroting social media commentators to come forth with great adulation, usually reserved for dying soldiers. But when we certify them improper, we get sanctimonious phrases like - "He's gone down in my estimation".

    When money is either destroyed or squandered, we feel distraught, We do so because it is like they are burning our dreams and desires "Imagine what I could do with that". Yet, what somebody chooses to do with their money, really has nothing to do with us. Our self importance over somebody else's business is sickening. Ronnie has given us an abundance of joy over the years, with his genius comes madness, as it always does. So the argument that fans paid money and should have been duly rewarded with the 147 is moot. As a music fan, this reminds me of some of the enigmas I have watched live over time. They can arrive late, or not turn up at all. The next week, they reveal their unbridled genius and you excuse them, this is what you invested your interest in. On the contrary, if you spend good money on Metallica, you will always get value for money, because they provide pyrotechnics. So you are responsible for which artist you would prefer to see. If you pay to watch Shaun Murphy, then expect ultimate professionalism and robotic personality, you won't be disappointed. If you pay to watch an unpredictable enigma, then expect unpredictable enigmatic things.

    By the way, what a masterstroke by Hearn to change his viewpoint today. Initially, it was no surprise to hear his condemnation. I doubt a man motivated by money would understand the artistic merit of another man forfeiting cash to make a point, that is not a language he understands. However, I think he realised last night that he was losing the battle. He has tried to turn the tables today with backhanded compliments and instead put the focus on the headlines Ronnie has made for snooker, which is a canny move.

    Ultimately, we forgive geniuses when the dust settles and we understand it was all in the name of entertainment. Alex Higgins has been forgiven of nearly everything he ever did. Geniuses are rightly excused in the end. It also shows us how spurious our personal offence to said incidents are.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X