class of 91 and class of 92

[trains]

Anthony hamilton was recently interviewed i think it was just after he qualified for the crucible and said that the class of 92 is still better than everyone else , what i think he was saying is he was putting himself in that fold too wiith alan mcmanus peter ebdon mark king and fergal o’brien from 1991 saying players from that era are better , my contention is these players benefitted somewhat from a softer professional tour than today so it was easier for them to keep their place than it is today, use the rankings history link on cuetracker to see how many places these players leapt in their first few years or see how strangely high some of the class of 91 players rankings were to begin with , and consequently the ensuing experience in the elite conditions has helped them hold onto their place , what i’m asking is if hamilton was say an 18 year old first time participant in this years q school would he qualify from the q school and get a place in the top 64 in his first or second year now or would he be a regular q school player like lee walker craig steadman and allan taylor ? what do you think , cheers

[Mark187187]

Without a doubt, Hamilton would qualify and remain in the tour. He has won tournaments. In the past 4 seasons he has 4 semi final appearances and he won the German Masters. He's a bit streaky, but he hasn't remained on the tour for 30 years through luck. He is leagues ahead of any of the other players you mention.

[Starsky]

Interesting subject , I was waiting for a reference to the access to pro tables debate .
One of the main reasons the class of 92 would have gone up the rankings so quickly after turning pro was due to the fact that they were the best players on the Pro Am circuit before the professional ranks were opened up. When this happened they were joined by loads of players who chanced their arm at being a pro but we’re never going to make it as they weren’t good enough. These players became cannon fodder for the better players and the rise in rankings proved this. It’s the same reason Ronnie won so many matches during this time along with him being better than most .

I don’t agree with your ‘elite conditions’ being a reason why the held onto their rankings but I think you already know that .

There are a load more players from 92 who were great amateurs, in fact better than Hamilton , King etc who turned pro and shot up the rankings only to falter and fall back again. At the end of the day it is due to many factors why players hold into their rankings but when all is said and done it’s about results .

BTW, The class of 92 to me are , O’Sullivan , Williams and Higgins. The rest are just players who turned pro at that time with varying degrees of success and longevity.

[trains]

i think i have to also consider this question in terms of where i'm placing it , this doesn't strike me as a particularly knowledgeable forum in weighing the modern qualifying system to the early 90's , that isn't meant as an insult or criticism though .

[Starsky]

Without a doubt, Hamilton would qualify and remain in the tour. He has won tournaments. In the past 4 seasons he has 4 semi final appearances and he won the German Masters. He's a bit streaky, but he hasn't remained on the tour for 30 years through luck. He is leagues ahead of any of the other players you mention.

I think the question is actually more to do with Hamilton being a 18yr old amateur trying to get thorough Q school and not in his current position . I think he would have struggled as the standard now at that level and age is higher .

[Starsky]

i think i have to also consider this question in terms of where i'm placing it , this doesn't strike me as a particularly knowledgeable forum in weighing the modern qualifying system to the early 90's , that isn't meant as an insult or criticism though .

Tbh unless your a player who has played both then it’s a very hard question to answer as your asking a hypothetical question .

I can only answer of the standard played when Hamilton was a amateur as I played on the same circuit in the late 80’s so I know the standard then but can only make presumptions on the modern day standard in the amateur circuit .

What’s your take on it and how did you come to that decision ?

[Mark187187]

Come on guys, Anthony Hamilton has spent 30 years in the top 64. How is this even a question? Why are we comparing him to Lee Walker and Craig Steadman? He's earned 1.5 million in prize money which puts him at no. 33 on the all time list.

[trains]

Tbh unless your a player who has played both then it’s a very hard question to answer as your asking a hypothetical question .

I can only answer of the standard played when Hamilton was a amateur as I played on the same circuit in the late 80’s so I know the standard then but can only make presumptions on the modern day standard in the amateur circuit .

What’s your take on it and how did you come to that decision ?

these are the ranking lists of the pro's at the end of this season up to this crucible quarter final http://www.snooker.org/res/index.asp...42&season=2019 and the list at the end of the 90/91 season https://cuetracker.net/rankings/1990-1991, which one strikes you as the list with the most good players or the one that would be the most difficult to hold a place as a pro player .

[Starsky]

Come on guys, Anthony Hamilton has spent 30 years in the top 64. How is this even a question? Why are we comparing him to Lee Walker and Craig Steadman? He's earned 1.5 million in prize money which puts him at no. 33 on the all time list.

I agree his career has been good and has had longevity as he is better player now than the current crop of newcomers.

As an 18 year old amateur going back to the future to Q school now his standard then wasn’t as good as it is now as you would expect without 30 years of experience and practice .

[Mark187187]

I agree his career has been good and has had longevity as he is better player now than the current crop of newcomers.

As an 18 year old amateur going back to the future to Q school now his standard then wasn’t as good as it is now as you would expect without 30 years of experience and practice .

It's the same for everyone- you can only beat who's put in front of you. I just find it odd that we're using Anthony Hamilton as the person we're comparing. Seriously, look at the top 64 from the early 90's and you kind find 50+ better examples of people who might struggle in today's q school. Then look at Anthony Hamilton's win/loss record for his first couple of seasons, and it speaks for itself. Arguably todays depth of talent is greater, but Anthony Hamilton is/was a world class player.

[trains]

It's the same for everyone- you can only beat who's put in front of you. I just find it odd that we're using Anthony Hamilton as the person we're comparing. Seriously, look at the top 64 from the early 90's and you kind find 50+ better examples of people who might struggle in today's q school. Then look at Anthony Hamilton's win/loss record for his first couple of seasons, and it speaks for itself. Arguably todays depth of talent is greater, but Anthony Hamilton is/was a world class player.

i posted that he said that the class of 92 was still better than everyone else and asked would he now as an 18 year old make it through today's q school and or get into the top 64 as an 18 or 19 year old , you can also use alan mcmanus fergal o brien mark king or peter ebdon .

[trains]

It's the same for everyone- you can only beat who's put in front of you. I just find it odd that we're using Anthony Hamilton as the person we're comparing. Seriously, look at the top 64 from the early 90's and you kind find 50+ better examples of people who might struggle in today's q school. Then look at Anthony Hamilton's win/loss record for his first couple of seasons, and it speaks for itself. Arguably todays depth of talent is greater, but Anthony Hamilton is/was a world class player.

' look at the top 64 from the early 90's and you can find 50 + better examples of people who might struggle in today's q school .'
'Then look at anthony hamiltons win loss record for his first couple of seasons and it speaks for itself .'

i don't really see the point your making that wasn't already made in my opening post .

[JimMalone]

You always only can judge somebody in respect to what they did within their generation. Sports and it's demands are always changing. If you look at more athletic sports like basketball or football obviously Bill Russell or Pele wouldn't have a chance when you put their physical shape and style of play of their time into today's age. But in their time and under their conditions they just dominated and if they had the same conditions and would live today, they would be among the best in their sports as well, because of their abilities.
Same goes for Snooker. With his abilities, so talent, work ethic, mentality Anthony Hamilton as an 18-year-old would get on the tour and to a high ranking again. I'm very positive about this.

[trains]

well he and o'brien mcmanus ebdon and king not only had the advantage of the game opening up but also the tour had a softer underbelly then , i mean compare the two situations , one 18 year old has to play a thousand pound to enter a tournament where he has to beat experienced pro's to get on tour then beat more experienced pro's to keep his tour card , where as hamilton ascended onto tour precisely when the game opened up where he moved up 36 places in the rankings in his first year which is unheard of now because there were much less good players on tour then , i don't know why the pro game is so protected anyway , i mean what do most of these players do for the sport anyway , ratings and interest , i don't think so .

[Mark187187]

well he and o'brien mcmanus ebdon and king not only had the advantage of the game opening up but also the tour had a softer underbelly then , i mean compare the two situations , one 18 year old has to play a thousand pound to enter a tournament where he has to beat experienced pro's to get on tour then beat more experienced pro's to keep his tour card , where as hamilton ascended onto tour precisely when the game opened up where he moved up 36 places in the rankings in his first year which is unheard of now because there were much less good players on tour then , i don't know why the pro game is so protected anyway , i mean what do most of these players do for the sport anyway , ratings and interest , i don't think so .

I think we all get your point. I'd question, again, your examples. I don't think a young Ebdon would struggle to get on or stay on the tour as it is now or any time in the last 30 years. He is a 9 time ranking event winner, including the World Championship.