Hendry V O'sullivan- Whos the greatest?

stpaddy99

Hmmmmm.....

Hendry 7 world titles
ronnie 5 so far

hendry 5 UK
Ronnie 4

Hendry 6 masters
Ronnie 5

Hendry 775 centuries
Ronnie 724

11 maximums each

hendry £10 million prize money
Ronnie £7.5 million

head to head Ronnie 30 - Hendry 21

Ranking titles
Hendry 36
Non ranking 38

Ronnie 26
Non ranking 24

Of course ronnie still has a few seasons to go so may yet get closer

The argument in favor of ronnie is, hes played in a slightly harder era a few years ahead of hendry and hes won as much as he has without entering nearly as many tournaments.

2 absolute geniuses and its always fun to compare the best

For what its worth I think they are the best there has ever been.
Other legends like steve davis, john higgins are just behind

stpaddy99

so is ronnie the greatest ever?

Spiderpig92

have to consider that most of Ronnie's victories over Hendry would have happend since 2000, when Hendry started to decline, but I suppose you could say that O'Sullivan has beaten Hendry when he was at the top of his game as a 17 year old in the UK final of 1993. Really hard to say at the minute, would say they are neck and neck atm, but if Ronnie wins at the Crucible in May then he will be the best. To win 6 World titles in this era would be something else. Then you have to ask the question: What if John Higgins wins his fifth World title this Spring? Unlikely at the minute, but if he were to tie Ronnie, would he be included in such a discussion? Then, of course Steve Davis. I would put him right up there on a par with Ronnie and Hendry, not just because of 6 World titles, but his dominance. It can be argued that he dominated the most, 6 Worlds, 6 UK's and 8 Irish Masters really does speak for itself, and of course his longevity has to be considered, a UK finalist at 48, and a World Quarter Finalist at 52. Of course, he may not have been able to produce the same standard that Hendry or O'Sullivan have but I really think he should be considered. So, at the minute, I would put Hendry a World title ahead of Ronnie, ie if Ronnie wins his 6th, he will be the best IMO. Steve Davis is a close 3rd simply because of his dominance

PeterKelly!

Steve Davis

stpaddy99

A few other points to make about davis.....and the boys from the 1970s and 1980s..they were playing with the heavy old ivory balls...anyone who has played with those knows it was a different game than these lightweight balls.....trying to maneouvre those around the table was incredibly difficult and break building cue ball control was very hard

as for davis, he has in fact won more 10 tournaments than hendry with 81 compared to 71 ..hendry 7 world titles davis 6, davis 6 UK titles Hendry 6....although hendry won 36 ranking titles and davis 28....there were fewer ranking tournaments in the 1980s...even the masters isnt a ranking tournament? weird?.... he is snookers greatest statesman , the next greatest statesman is the great ray reardon who was and is a wonderful man, 6 world titles world number 1 for years and also one of the great entertainers....a true gentleman who also helped coach ronnie osullivan to his first world title

davis was world number 1 for 8 straight years,...he made 345 centuries..,also won the world pairs a few times with tony meo....and won the world seniors last year
he won his last major title in 1997 at the record age of 41....an epic and emotional win over ronnnie o in the masters.
hes my favourite player, Ive met him a few days and he is an absolute gentleman and awesome professional at all times.....he even went on to become a bit of a pool legend too for a few years and won the mosconi cup with europe
a national treasure

TrevSmyth147

UK titles Hendry 6

Hendry has won the UK title 5 times, so is one behind Davis on that score.

If you consider the World, UK, and Masters titles to be the 3 majors, the rankings are as follows for the modern day players:

Hendry: 18
Davis: 15
O'Sullivan: 14
J Higgins: 9

There's no doubt that O'Sullivan will win more majors, surpassing Hendry is definitely on, because he's playing the best snooker of his career at the moment. And he won't be affected by age as much as other players because a lot of his talent is natural.

token56

I think its fair to say that Ronnie is the most naturally gifted snooker player we have ever seen in terms of technical ability. The number of championships he has won and the relative ease in doing so in some of them has shown this.

However, his temperament has to be taken into account. When he wants to play and is mentally motivated he is pretty much unbeatable. But this motivation is something Ronnie has always struggled with it and is the only black mark against him really and stops him from being the full package in my opinion. I'd be reluctant to call him the most complete player, whether this means he is the greatest or not, I'm still not sure.

Bluezar

Ronnie

melon_collie

token56 wrote: »

I think its fair to say that Ronnie is the most naturally gifted snooker player we have ever seen in terms of technical ability. The number of championships he has won and the relative ease in doing so in some of them has shown this.

However, his temperament has to be taken into account. When he wants to play and is mentally motivated he is pretty much unbeatable. But this motivation is something Ronnie has always struggled with it and is the only black mark against him really and stops him from being the full package in my opinion. I'd be reluctant to call him the most complete player, whether this means he is the greatest or not, I'm still not sure.

Yeah I'd have to agree with this. O'Sullivan is by far the most talented and naturally gifted player there has ever been. But psychologically he is lacking and unpredicitible . . . . . and for that reason I would put him below Hendry.

YFlyer

stpaddy99 wrote: »

A few other points to make about davis.....and the boys from the 1970s and 1980s..they were playing with the heavy old ivory balls...anyone who has played with those knows it was a different game than these lightweight balls.....trying to maneouvre those around the table was incredibly difficult and break building cue ball control was very hard

as for davis, he has in fact won more 10 tournaments than hendry with 81 compared to 71 ..hendry 7 world titles davis 6, davis 6 UK titles Hendry 6....although hendry won 36 ranking titles and davis 28....there were fewer ranking tournaments in the 1980s...even the masters isnt a ranking tournament? weird?.... he is snookers greatest statesman , the next greatest statesman is the great ray reardon who was and is a wonderful man, 6 world titles world number 1 for years and also one of the great entertainers....a true gentleman who also helped coach ronnie osullivan to his first world title

davis was world number 1 for 8 straight years,...he made 345 centuries..,also won the world pairs a few times with tony meo....and won the world seniors last year
he won his last major title in 1997 at the record age of 41....an epic and emotional win over ronnnie o in the masters.
hes my favourite player, Ive met him a few days and he is an absolute gentleman and awesome professional at all times.....he even went on to become a bit of a pool legend too for a few years and won the mosconi cup with europe
a national treasure

Ivory balls in the 1970s and 1980s?

tomdempsey200

melon_collie wrote: »

Yeah I'd have to agree with this. O'Sullivan is by far the most talented and naturally gifted player there has ever been. But psychologically he is lacking and unpredicitible . . . . . and for that reason I would put him below Hendry.

he's shown a lot of improvement in that department lately with the new shrink

it's certainly amazing what he's doing now after 20 yrs in the game

i reckon myself now he believes he can chase 8 world titles

back when he had 2 or 3 i don't think he did

stpaddy99

amazing to think ronnie has 5 world titles now...hes gone about it differently to hendry, who was totally dominat world number 1 for years and won more tournaments....but ronnie picks and chooses but he stays fresh and it seems to work. who knows maybe he can match or beat what once seemed the impossible task fo hendrys worlds record haul

mr lee

im a hendry fan so im biased that way,for a start theres nothin special about this era,its all been done before,in fact i think the 90's were better,you had hendry,white,sullivan,higgins,williams playing great stuff,pick out the top 5 players now and compare them,
the argument that sullivan has done it playing less tournaments is wrong,
theres also joe davis,what would he have achieved in the modern game?
the top four players ever were joe davis,steve davis,hendry and sullivan,
if your english you will say the best is sullivan,if your scottish you will say hendr
i say hendry all the way,for sullivan to take it,he needs to win 8 world titles,if he equals hendrys 7 titles its still a bit inconclusive,
if sullivan equals or beats hendrys 36 ranking titles it doesnt count because of all the extra ranking tournaments we have now,all the extra tournaments now is gonna ruin all the old records,if hendry was in his prime now how many ranking titles would he win?
its the world titles that count and nothin else.

Bruthal

mr lee wrote: »

i say hendry all the way,for sullivan to take it,he needs to win 8 world titles,if he equals hendrys 7 titles its still a bit inconclusive,



its the world titles that count and nothin else

Do you believe taylor was a better player than white?

stpaddy99

Bruthal wrote: »

Do you believe taylor was a better player than white?

hows that relevant?

Bruthal

stpaddy99 wrote: »

hows that relevant?

The poster says only world title`s count. So it seems relevant enough.

stpaddy99

Bruthal wrote: »

The poster says only world title`s count. So it seems relevant enough.

hes not quite saying that. hes just saying for ronnie to even challenge hendry he would need 8 world titles...because ronnie is behind hendry on all other counts too....career titles, masters titles, ranking titles , time as world number 1

if ronnie can say equal hendry on uk titles, masters titles and beat his world record , then perhaps he can seriously challenge to be called the best ever/....one also has to take into account ronnie came in 5 or 6 years after hendry and ronnies era was slightly better standard

Bruthal

stpaddy99 wrote: »

one also has to take into account ronnie came in 5 or 6 years after hendry and ronnies era was slightly better standard

Thats the point, purely going by actual numbers of world titles is not conclusive.

If it was, then taylor was better than white. And davis was better than o sullivan. Neither of which is true in my opinion.

stpaddy99

Bruthal wrote: »

Thats the point, purely going by actual numbers of world titles is not conclusive.

If it was, then taylor was better than white. And davis was better than o sullivan. Neither of which is true in my opinion.

I agree its not just about worlds but
howver myself and other posters are already saying we take lots into account as do most posters...so no one ever said taylor is better than white, because we also look at career wins, finals, rankings , longevity etc

white won 28 titles (10 ranking) including the UK and the masters taylor won 2 ranking titles (19 career titles)
also white was world runner up 6 times and world number 1
taylor world runner up once

davis v osullivan is an interesting one
the fact the balls were a different material then made break building harder for starters so thats a factor

I think davis had a better tactical game. he also dominated the game far more being at world number 1 for 8 years and won 81 titles compared to ronnies 50

ronnie is a vastly better break builder and played in a stronger era too
overall ronnie is a far greater talent than the nugget....but davis was a genius tactician too

the 97 masters final where davis won his last major against ronnie was a classic clash of eras.....

at the end of it all I think ronnie will go down as better than the nugget.
but the nugget was awesome too and is 1 of the sports greatest ever ambassadors

Bruthal

stpaddy99 wrote: »

so no one ever said taylor is better than white,

I never actually said they did myself:)

But if we take what the poster I quoted said as an accurate benchmark, that only the number of world titles is the way to show who is/was best between o sullivan and hendry, then it must be the same for any 2 players chosen.

Who is or was the best might not perfectly equal who is or was the most successful. But it depends on who is judging.

mr lee

some interesting points lads,i'l try and address some of them,
taylor v white,white was a superior player to taylor,taylor won his world title against a brutal steve davis,davis started off great but he completely fell apart,white reached 6 world finals,losing to davis at his best,parrot in his best ever season and 4 to hendry,he should have taken 1 off hendry only for the horrible miss on frame ball,i didnt name white as of the greatest,i named him as 1 of the best players of a generation,
the world championship is the ultimate test of skill,no other tournament even comes close,i bet jimmy white would give up the ranking titles he won just for 1 world title,any player that hasnt won the worlds would give up everything else they won,just for 1 title,
saying the current era is better than hendrys is wrong,hendry created the modern game with his attacking game,with the exception of ronnie,nobody else has even come close to what hendry achieved,or has consistently played to such a high standard,current players have flashes of great play but they cant sustain it,
with all the extra tournaments now i dont think hendry or sullivan will end up with the most amount of centuries,players are now making the same amount of centuries in half a season as they were making in a full season,this will also affect the prize money count,the ranking titles count,and the non ranking titles count,dont forget sullivan has all these extra tournaments,hendry did not,nor did davis,
to me the world championship remains as a constant benchmark for greatness,it is pure and untouched,the ultimate test.

TrevSmyth147

I thought I'd chip in on this argument. Hendry relied on his heavy scoring and brilliant break building to win as many frames as possible in one or a very low number of visits per frame. He was also one of the bravest players ever to pick up a cue, taking on do-or-die shots at vital parts of matches. An unbelievable blue he knocked in down the cushion with the rest against Davis at 15-14 down in the 1990 UK Championship final comes to mind at this moment. However, he had a mediocre safety game. I would also argue that Hendry's opponents gave up more chances in that era than top players would in today's era. Also his rivals won less frames in one visit than the top players would in today's game.

O'Sullivan's safety game is almost as good as anyone who has ever played the game. In short, O'Sullivan's safety game is far superior than Hendry's ever was. In terms of break building, heavy scoring, and wining frames in one visit, O'Sullivan has no equal in the history of the game. I would place him slightly above Hendry in the scoring department. O'Sullivan's achilles heel has always been the mental side of his game, there have been numerous examples of him losing the plot during matches and no doubt his off-table personal life and family life has impacted his peace of mind which has led to his downfall on a number of occasions. But the mental side of his game can be looked at from 2 perspectives. For me, for a man to have gone through some of the stuff that he has gone through, starting at the age of 17, to come through all that and go on to win 5 world championships etc is an unbelievable achievement. When you think about it, the Ronnie O'Sullivan we could be reading about today could be a tale of unfulfilled potential, a player who could have been a world champion had off-table and extremely difficult family circumstances not conspired against him. The fact that he has gone to achieve what he has, really is quite extraordinary.

Taking all aspects of their games into consideration, a Hendry at his best pitted against an O'Sullivan at his best would yield one outcome - a victory for O'Sullivan. O'Sullivan would create more chances for himself with the strength of his safety game against Hendry's safety game, and he would make at least as many frame winning contributions as Hendry from the chances he got. On that basis I would consider O'Sullivan to be a better player than Hendry. However I acknowledge that title wins need to be considered and the argument is there for Hendry being the best on that basis. But who knows, O'Sullivan appears to have a focus now like never before and I wouldn't bet against him overhauling Hendry's record of world titles.

mr lee

TrevSmyth147 wrote: »

I thought I'd chip in on this argument. Hendry relied on his heavy scoring and brilliant break building to win as many frames as possible in one or a very low number of visits per frame. He was also one of the bravest players ever to pick up a cue, taking on do-or-die shots at vital parts of matches. An unbelievable blue he knocked in down the cushion with the rest against Davis at 15-14 down in the 1990 UK Championship final comes to mind at this moment. However, he had a mediocre safety game. I would also argue that Hendry's opponents gave up more chances in that era than top players would in today's era. Also his rivals won less frames in one visit than the top players would in today's game.

O'Sullivan's safety game is almost as good as anyone who has ever played the game. In short, O'Sullivan's safety game is far superior than Hendry's ever was. In terms of break building, heavy scoring, and wining frames in one visit, O'Sullivan has no equal in the history of the game. I would place him slightly above Hendry in the scoring department. O'Sullivan's achilles heel has always been the mental side of his game, there have been numerous examples of him losing the plot during matches and no doubt his off-table personal life and family life has impacted his peace of mind which has led to his downfall on a number of occasions. But the mental side of his game can be looked at from 2 perspectives. For me, for a man to have gone through some of the stuff that he has gone through, starting at the age of 17, to come through all that and go on to win 5 world championships etc is an unbelievable achievement. When you think about it, the Ronnie O'Sullivan we could be reading about today could be a tale of unfulfilled potential, a player who could have been a world champion had off-table and extremely difficult family circumstances not conspired against him. The fact that he has gone to achieve what he has, really is quite extraordinary.

Taking all aspects of their games into consideration, a Hendry at his best pitted against an O'Sullivan at his best would yield one outcome - a victory for O'Sullivan. O'Sullivan would create more chances for himself with the strength of his safety game against Hendry's safety game, and he would make at least as many frame winning contributions as Hendry from the chances he got. On that basis I would consider O'Sullivan to be a better player than Hendry. However I acknowledge that title wins need to be considered and the argument is there for Hendry being the best on that basis. But who knows, O'Sullivan appears to have a focus now like never before and I wouldn't bet against him overhauling Hendry's record of world titles.

some of your argument is flawed,hendry finished of davis's career,davis is considered the best safety player of all time,i agree sullivans safety game is better than hendrys,but it is not far superior,hendry had a different style of safety,do you seriously think hendry would have achieved what he did if he didnt have a good safety game,
saying what sullivan could have done is a mute point,could haves and would haves never got anyone anythin,he has done what he has done and its as simple as that,he aint the only snooker player with problems,i guarantee that,

also,sullivan gives up plenty of chances,problem is his opponents these days are unable to take them properly,they crumble,therefore players these days do give up plenty of chances,
hendry had the greatest bottle of anyone,it seemed the more pressure in a situation the better he got,hendry trumps sullivan in the high pressure situation(pun intented),
sullivan is the best player in the world at the moment but even hendry has come out and said the rest of the best are not stepping up to the mark,
what does that say about the standard today?,

this is a perfect thread for a poll,results would be interesting.

mr lee

with all the extra tournaments now,players are making 50-60 century breaks by xmas,and not even winning a tournament,i think this is distorting the perception of how good the standard of todays game is.

TrevSmyth147

some of your argument is flawed

If some of my argument is flawed, maybe you could put out a sensible argument explaining why. Because I'm not seeing it.

hendry finished of davis's career,davis is considered the best safety player of all time

That's your first gross factual overstatement. Hendry didn't finish Davis's career. Davis continued to compete at the highest level for many years after the arrival of Hendry. He was the world number 2 up to 1996. He won the Irish masters 4 times in the 1990's, the Masters once, and had 5 ranking tournament wins including 2 consecutive Welsh Open wins in the mid-nineties. Does that sound like his career had ended?

Secondly, Hendry didn't oust Davis as the world number one through good safety play. He out-potted him and everyone else in the game at the time. He had the most aggressive style of play and more desire than most. Also by 1990, Davis's game wasn't getting any stronger and his personal life was beginning to intrude on his game.

Hendry didn't believe in safety, he admits that himself today. While Hendry was content with seeing the cue ball drift below the baulk line or close to the cushion, O'Sullivan is always looking for the hardest possible position to leave his opponent in. That's one of the crucial differences between the 2 players. While Hendry's approach to safety might have cut the mustard in the 90's, it would cause him more problems in today's game, and against O'Sullivan.

im a hendry fan so im biased that way

Ah, maybe I should have seen this first, that explains a lot.;)

It's not all about safety play though. O'Sullivan's positional play is just that little bit tighter than Hendry's ever was at his best (and I'm not biased towards either, I've seen and admired both players).

stpaddy99

turning into a class thread this, with great contributions ...so ronnie is the greatest talent, but hendry has the most big titles and davis has more career tournament wins than either. I also remind you the old snooker balls they used in the 1970s and 1980s were 10 times harder to play with, thicker , hevaier, denser, very hard to maneouvre around the table and far harder for positional play and break building. fascinating debate this.

mistermatthew

stpaddy99 wrote: »

turning into a class thread this, with great contributions ...so ronnie is the greatest talent, but hendry has the most big titles and davis has more career tournament wins than either. I also remind you the old snooker balls they used in the 1970s and 1980s were 10 times harder to play with, thicker , hevaier, denser, very hard to maneouvre around the table and far harder for positional play and break building. fascinating debate this.

Stpaddy99, you have made several mentions of Heavier balls and "Ivory balls" in the time of Davis. Just for the record the balls were not Ivory in that period. However the cloths were slower and thicker.

mr lee

mistermatthew wrote: »

Stpaddy99, you have made several mentions of Heavier balls and "Ivory balls" in the time of Davis. Just for the record the balls were not Ivory in that period. However the cloths were slower and thicker.

ivory was outlawed in the 40's

loyatemu

TrevSmyth147 wrote: »

Taking all aspects of their games into consideration, a Hendry at his best pitted against an O'Sullivan at his best would yield one outcome - a victory for O'Sullivan.

that's not a fair comparison - every era is better than the one preceding it. Joe Davis wouldn't win a frame against any player in the current top 50, yet he dominated the era he played in.

Hendry and Davis were both more dominant in their respective eras than O'Sullivan, though Ronnie has upped his game significantly in the last 5 years to the point where, when in the mood, he is untouchable. Both Hendry and Davis had that same invincible aura around them at their peak though, so its difficult to really call it.

bassy

Ronnie is the most naturally gifted player in snooker,but he,s not the greatest.hendry is the king on all that he,s won and he,s long reign as no.1 in the world.
until Ronnie matches or beats the Hendry record,only then can it be open for discussion.

stpaddy99

if anyone hasnt seen it please go and watch ronnies 147 in the final frame today to win the welsh open.....the shot he plays on the last red left handed is the best snooker shot ive ever seen
if he keeps this up he may go down as the greatest ever.
absolute genius

Pighead

stpaddy99 wrote: »

if anyone hasnt seen it please go and watch ronnies 147 in the final frame today to win the welsh open.....the shot he plays on the last red left handed is the best snooker shot ive ever seen
if he keeps this up he may go down as the greatest ever.
absolute genius

Stephen Hendry agrees with you! He tweeted the following after the match:

stephen hendry ‏@SHendry775 2h
Last red best shot I've seen
Time for the rest to step up or give him world title now

stpaddy99

Hendry 7 world titles
ronnie 5 so far

hendry 5 UK
Ronnie 4

Hendry 6 masters
Ronnie 5

Hendry 775 centuries
Ronnie 730

ronnie 12 maximums
hendry 11

hendry £10 million prize money
Ronnie £7.6 million

head to head Ronnie 30 - Hendry 21

Ranking titles
Hendry 36
Non ranking 38

Ronnie 26
Non ranking 24

still a fair way to go but if he keeps this up who knows?

stpaddy99

Pighead wrote: »

Stephen Hendry agrees with you! He tweeted the following after the match:

stephen hendry ‏@SHendry775 2h
Last red best shot I've seen
Time for the rest to step up or give him world title now

wow thats amazing thanks for that, great minds think alike lol
seriously hendry is the master and if he says that it has to be taken very seriously. that shot in any circumstances was phemoneal, but for a 147? its out of this world

wonderfullife

I tweeted Hendry a few weeks back and asked him:

"Would you back yourself best-of-35 against Ronnie with both of you at the peak of your powers?"

He replied:

"Yes".

Now, all that means in practice is Hendry at his best feared nobody.

But it also says he thinks he's the best.

The crux of it is this - we'll never know for certain as their careers didn't overlap enough.

They're definitely 2 of the top 5 though.

I could build a very strong case for Joe Davis though.

This was a supremely talented individual. I can't understate how difficult it would have been to make a 147 break in 1955.

Heavy cloths. The modern table usually has a Strachan cloth which weighs 30oz and is sheared using modern methods and can be shaved to within 1/1000th of a millimetre using computers to aide that.

In 1955, when Davis made the first official 147 break, the cloth would have weighed 38oz's with a nap at least 5 times thicker than the modern nap.

I'm sure we've all played on a dodgy snooker table somewhere where you have to literally whack the balls to get any spin or movement. That's the type of cloth Davis played on.

Balls - The composite material used to make snooker balls in the 1940s and 1950s was so much heavier than the modern crystalite ball. Whilst they weren't as heavy as Ivory (which was like 2 stones) they weighed considerably more than the modern ball. Heavier balls meant a few things: 1. needing more power on each shot to achieve similar result to today and 2. Splitting the reds off black or blue much more difficult to do and requiring more power.

Also add in to that fact there was no table heaters.

To make a max in competition in 1955 , and indeed his 146 break in 1947, were monumental achievements.

More over, nearly every modern cue action and technique is textbook Davis.

I firmly believe with his talent, raw ability, dedication and brilliance, he would have been ranked number 1 in the world right now. He could only be as good as his era allowed. Very little competition, massive best-of-75 style matches and exhibtions. He was so far ahead of his time that he had few who he could practice with, let alone beat him.

Comparing eras is notoriously difficult and Ronnie is clearly the most natural genius our era has seen. But, as a snooker anorak, i've seen enough archive footage, testimonials and stories to believe Joe Davis would be at the absolute top of the game were he in his prime today.

My top 5 of all eras would probably look like this:

1. Ronnie
2. Joe Davis
3. Stephen Hendry
4. Steve Davis
5. Ray Reardon

If we are going purely on the modern era then:

1. Ronnie
2. Hendry
3. Davis
4. John Higgins
5. Ding

Ding is controversial given he's not a world champion but he's head and shoulders better than Robertson and Selby in my view (who are less talented but dedicated). Mark Williams would be a candidate given his world titles but he's ruined his legacy in latter years.

stpaddy99

wonderfullife wrote: »

I tweeted Hendry a few weeks back and asked him:

"Would you back yourself best-of-35 against Ronnie with both of you at the peak of your powers?"

He replied:

"Yes".

Now, all that means in practice is Hendry at his best feared nobody.

But it also says he thinks he's the best.

The crux of it is this - we'll never know for certain as their careers didn't overlap enough.

They're definitely 2 of the top 5 though.

I could build a very strong case for Joe Davis though.

This was a supremely talented individual. I can't understate how difficult it would have been to make a 147 break in 1955.

Heavy cloths. The modern table usually has a Strachan cloth which weighs 30oz and is sheared using modern methods and can be shaved to within 1/1000th of a millimetre using computers to aide that.

In 1955, when Davis made the first official 147 break, the cloth would have weighed 38oz's with a nap at least 5 times thicker than the modern nap.

I'm sure we've all played on a dodgy snooker table somewhere where you have to literally whack the balls to get any spin or movement. That's the type of cloth Davis played on.

Balls - The composite material used to make snooker balls in the 1940s and 1950s was so much heavier than the modern crystalite ball. Whilst they weren't as heavy as Ivory (which was like 2 stones) they weighed considerably more than the modern ball. Heavier balls meant a few things: 1. needing more power on each shot to achieve similar result to today and 2. Splitting the reds off black or blue much more difficult to do and requiring more power.

Also add in to that fact there was no table heaters.

To make a max in competition in 1955 , and indeed his 146 break in 1947, were monumental achievements.

More over, nearly every modern cue action and technique is textbook Davis.

I firmly believe with his talent, raw ability, dedication and brilliance, he would have been ranked number 1 in the world right now. He could only be as good as his era allowed. Very little competition, massive best-of-75 style matches and exhibtions. He was so far ahead of his time that he had few who he could practice with, let alone beat him.

Comparing eras is notoriously difficult and Ronnie is clearly the most natural genius our era has seen. But, as a snooker anorak, i've seen enough archive footage, testimonials and stories to believe Joe Davis would be at the absolute top of the game were he in his prime today.

My top 5 of all eras would probably look like this:

1. Ronnie
2. Joe Davis
3. Stephen Hendry
4. Steve Davis
5. Ray Reardon

If we are going purely on the modern era then:

1. Ronnie
2. Hendry
3. Davis
4. John Higgins
5. Ding

Ding is controversial given he's not a world champion but he's head and shoulders better than Robertson and Selby in my view (who are less talented but dedicated). Mark Williams would be a candidate given his world titles but he's ruined his legacy in latter years.

brilliant post, except for the last bit about ding. he wouldnt make the top 50 imo

otherwise brilliant thread and delighted someone mentioned the enormous changes in the balls and tables and cues which has made the game infinitely easier

Mr. Incognito

If I had to pick someone to watch- it'd be Ronnie all day long.

If I had to put my life savings on a match between Peak Ronnie and Peak Henry

I'd put it on Henry. Ronnie is naturally more gifted but Henry was an unbelievable player who did everything perfectly combined with an excellent temperament. Ronnie will take on shots Henry never attempted because Henry didn't have to.

I prefer Ronnie as a player and a personality and I would root for him in a match between them, but in tears of dominance and the best all time. I think Henry pips it for me.

Bruthal

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

If I had to pick someone to watch- it'd be Ronnie all day long.

If I had to put my life savings on a match between Peak Ronnie and Peak Henry

I'd put it on Henry. Ronnie is naturally more gifted but Henry was an unbelievable player who did everything perfectly combined with an excellent temperament. Ronnie will take on shots Henry never attempted because Henry didn't have to.

I prefer Ronnie as a player and a personality and I would root for him in a match between them, but in tears of dominance and the best all time. I think Henry pips it for me.

Possibly what you would be putting your life savings on is which ronnie turns up. In my opinion, at his very best, no one who ever played would beat him.

Bruthal

stpaddy99 wrote: »

if anyone hasnt seen it please go and watch ronnies 147 in the final frame today to win the welsh open.....the shot he plays on the last red left handed is the best snooker shot ive ever seen
if he keeps this up he may go down as the greatest ever.
absolute genius

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVfUhWjkp0A

Bruthal

stpaddy99 wrote: »

brilliant post, except for the last bit about ding. he wouldnt make the top 50 imo

10 or so ranking titles, 3 as a teenager, 5 maximums, 300+ centuries. Not bad for a player never making it inside the top 50.

stpaddy99

what a priveliege it is to have watched these 2 legends in their prime....its also superb to hear how magnanimous both men are. I think ronnie gets a hard time for his attitude. hes an incredible sportsman who struggled with his dad being locked away. A word too for the legendary ray reardon who isnpired ronnie to win his first few titles with hi sold school coaching, his humour his warmth and immense experience. ray reardon is a giant in the game and better still,a true gentleman

Arthur Daley

Bruthal wrote: »

Possibly what you would be putting your life savings on is which ronnie turns up. In my opinion, at his very best, no one who ever played would beat him.

Yes, Ronnie at his best, will take Hendry 9 times out of ten, anyway.

Honourable mention to Jimmy at his peak, surely. He lived with Hendry at his peak in the 92 and 94 finals, but just fell short getting over the line. Also was damn close in 84 world final against Davis at the top of his game.

stpaddy99

Bruthal wrote: »

10 or so ranking titles, 3 as a teenager, 5 maximums, 300+ centuries. Not bad for a player never making it inside the top 50.

fair point, I was a bit hasty with my argument. hed be top 20 but thats all at present. if he wins the world who knows.

stpaddy99

Arthur Daley wrote: »

Yes, Ronnie at his best, will take Hendry 9 times out of ten, anyway.

Honourable mention to Jimmy at his peak, surely. He lived with Hendry at his peak in the 92 and 94 finals, but just fell short getting over the line. Also was damn close in 84 world final against Davis at the top of his game.

they met 51 times ronnie won 30. so thats 59%. your 9 out of 10 therefore is clearly an exaggeration.
agreed about whirlwind white, absolute legend...over 300 centuries, 28 titles (10 ranking) won the UK and the masters too..147 at the worlds ....plus his 6 world championship runners ups is an incredible achievement in itself

Bruthal

Arthur Daley wrote: »

Honourable mention to Jimmy at his peak, surely. He lived with Hendry at his peak in the 92 and 94 finals, but just fell short getting over the line. Also was damn close in 84 world final against Davis at the top of his game.

Once he had not won it before, the pressure mounted each time he made another final. Id say had he won it in 92 when well ahead, he might well not have cracked on that black in 94.

kryogen

Imo Ronnie is the best that has ever picked up a cue, but he needs to go and get the world titles to cement that in the record books, as of right now Hendry is the most impressive player and he deserves the high regard he is held in. He earned it by putting the titles on the board.

Ronnie needs to do the same so there is no doubt. In my mind there is none, but that wont be enough for everyone

Tiger Woods is the greatest golfer of all time, but it he still has someone elses record hanging over him in debates at times.

walshb

For records and statistics I would say Hendry reigns supreme, but for pure talent and overall skill it has to be Ronnie. An effortless potting machine. Comes more naturally to him than any other player ever. Both on their best form I would back Ronnie 7/10 times.

tomdempsey200

peak Ronnie v peak Hendry

I reckon Ronnie would thrash him

matban

I think Hendry set the bar

O'Sullivan vaulted over it

stpaddy99

walshb wrote: »

For records and statistics I would say Hendry reigns supreme, but for pure talent and overall skill it has to be Ronnie. An effortless potting machine. Comes more naturally to him than any other player ever. Both on their best form I would back Ronnie 7/10 times.

good post. theve had some awesome battles and I pretty agree with your appraisal......im delighted and somewhat amazed Ronnie has nearly fulfilled his monumental talent. for years it seemed to be wasted, but 5 world titles etc is a massive achievement. even with his genius it still takes years and years of hard work dedication preparation etc etc

Backstreet Moyes

stpaddy99 wrote: »

good post. theve had some awesome battles and I pretty agree with your appraisal......im delighted and somewhat amazed Ronnie has nearly fulfilled his monumental talent. for years it seemed to be wasted, but 5 world titles etc is a massive achievement. even with his genius it still takes years and years of hard work dedication preparation etc etc

It has to be Ronnie in fairness. He said before the masters for the first time in years he practiced properly for a few weeks. Then he wins the masters dropping only a few frames it was fantastic. If he had Hendry' dedication he would have a few more world's.