Who do you rate as the greater player?

SnookerFan wrote:

Johnny Bravo wrote:For those of you who don't know what greatness is, let me enlighten you

Is Johnny B the next Dalai Lama?

This thread is basically a few fellas wrongly but strongly claiming there’s a debate to be had here, and a poll completely ignoring those claims.

Johnny Bravo wrote:

Iranu wrote:Also you could argue that Ding has had the biggest impact on the sport of any player currently on the tour with the possible exception of Jimmy.

His impact is artificially magnified by the fact that he's Chinese and China has a huge population.
Ding hasn't had a bigger impact on the tour than the 3 Kings: Alex, Jimmy and Ronnie. Judd is next in line to the throne succession and after ROS retires he will become the 4th king

What are you talking about “artificially magnified”? Impact is what it is, there’s nothing artificial about it. Look at the swathe of young players from China and Asia since Ding. Who cares if it’s a huge country - it’s also a country with basically no history of snooker before the last 20 years. Ding put snooker on the map in China which has led to multiple tournaments being held there, a huge increase of TV coverage which helps with sponsorship etc.

I also think that you’re overstating Ronnie’s impact on the game. Let’s be honest it’s nowhere close to Jimmy or Alex - there are other 80s players that would be ahead of him. I’d have Stephen Hendry ahead of him too because of how he changed the way the game is played, something that’s still the case 30+ years later. Let’s not forget that Ronnie’s era on the other hand coincided with a decline in snooker interest that has only been stopped since Hearn came in (and I still don’t think it’s really improved in the UK). I’m a huge fan of Ronnie but I don’t think he’s close to Alex and Jimmy in terms of impact.

Judd isn’t even close to the line of succession at the moment. He’s the dominant force but I don’t see anything that suggests he’s having an impact on snooker as a whole.

Pink Ball wrote:Greater and better are the same bucking thing.

No, they are not.
I am better than someone at a sport if I can play that sport to a higher level.
I am greater only if I achieve greater things.

I'll use the same example again. Please answer me this: Do you believe Judd Trump's peak form is higher than that of Steve Davis ? Can he play better ?
If the answer is yes, why don't you also say Trump is greater ?!???????
Answer: cause you know he isn't. Not yet at least, he still has more to achieve in order for us to label him as such.

Having a higher peak form doesn’t mean you’re the better sportsperson. Being better is a combination of everything.

Johnny Bravo wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:Greater and better are the same bucking thing.

No, they are not.
I am better than someone at a sport if I can play that sport to a higher level.
I am greater only if I achieve greater things.

I'll use the same example again. Please answer me this: Do you believe Judd Trump's peak form is higher than that of Steve Davis ? Can he play better ?
If the answer is yes, why don't you also say Trump is greater ?!???????
Answer: cause you know he isn't. Not yet at least, he still has more to achieve in order for us to label him as such.

I think if Steve Davis were around today, starting out, he would be better than Trump. You pay no attention to tactical and safety nous. Davis was a better-rounded player. There are only three players in history that I regard as better than Steve Davis, and Judd Trump is not one of them.

Iranu wrote:What are you talking about “artificially magnified”? Impact is what it is, there’s nothing artificial about it. Look at the swathe of young players from China and Asia since Ding. Who cares if it’s a huge country - it’s also a country with basically no history of snooker before the last 20 years. Ding put snooker on the map in China which has led to multiple tournaments being held there, a huge increase of TV coverage which helps with sponsorship etc.

Imagine Ding was never born. Any Chinese player that would have been successful would have increased TV coverage in China.
So my point is you shouldn't be influenced by the numbers. It's logical that since China is a big country, he's gonna have many supporters. But if for example he were from Malta, he'd have few supporters.
Apart from his fellow countrymen, Ding doesn't have that much of a fanbase.

Iranu wrote:I also think that you’re overstating Ronnie’s impact on the game. Let’s be honest it’s nowhere close to Jimmy or Alex - there are other 80s players that would be ahead of him. I’d have Stephen Hendry ahead of him too because of how he changed the way the game is played, something that’s still the case 30+ years later. Let’s not forget that Ronnie’s era on the other hand coincided with a decline in snooker interest that has only been stopped since Hearn came in (and I still don’t think it’s really improved in the UK). I’m a huge fan of Ronnie but I don’t think he’s close to Alex and Jimmy in terms of impact.

Judd isn’t even close to the line of succession at the moment. He’s the dominant force but I don’t see anything that suggests he’s having an impact on snooker as a whole.

Iranu wrote:I also think that you’re overstating Ronnie’s impact on the game. Let’s be honest it’s nowhere close to Jimmy or Alex

Yes he is. He has the most supporters, just like they had.

Iranu wrote:I also think that you’re overstating Ronnie’s impact on the game......- there are other 80s players that would be ahead of him.

Like whom ?! There is nobody else in the 80s that can be compared to him, apart from Jimmy and Alex.

Iranu wrote:I’d have Stephen Hendry ahead of him too because of how he changed the way the game is played, something that’s still the case 30+ years later.

Hendry did not have as many fans/supporters, and did not influence as many people to tune in to their TVs to watch the sport or to take it up and play it. Therefore he's not ahead.

Iranu wrote:Judd isn’t even close to the line of succession at the moment. He’s the dominant force but I don’t see anything that suggests he’s having an impact on snooker as a whole.

Outside of ROS, he has the most fans. Therefore he is.

Was Stephen Hendry not kind of popular in the late 80s and 1990? I remember watching the 1992 world final few years ago and the commentators were saying stuff like Stephen certainly isn't used to all the crowd being against him considering the amount of suport he usually gets.

Pink Ball wrote:

Johnny Bravo wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:Greater and better are the same bucking thing.

No, they are not.
I am better than someone at a sport if I can play that sport to a higher level.
I am greater only if I achieve greater things.

I'll use the same example again. Please answer me this: Do you believe Judd Trump's peak form is higher than that of Steve Davis ? Can he play better ?
If the answer is yes, why don't you also say Trump is greater ?!???????
Answer: cause you know he isn't. Not yet at least, he still has more to achieve in order for us to label him as such.

I think if Steve Davis were around today, starting out, he would be better than Trump. You pay no attention to tactical and safety nous. Davis was a better-rounded player. There are only three players in history that I regard as better than Steve Davis, and Judd Trump is not one of them.

Yes Judd is better than him, far better.
Trump's peak form is second all time to ROS.
Trump at his absolute best mops the floor with any version of Davis.
And I do pay attention to tactical and safety nous. Just like ROS, Trump has improved massively in those departments and can battle it out on even grounds with everyone in the history of the game.
You could say that the likes of Selbo, Higgins (fat one) and Davis have an extra 10 percents in those departments compared to ROS and Trump, but that's about it.
On the other hand, ROS and Trump are far better potters and breakbuilders.

Juddernaut88 wrote:Was Stephen Hendry not kind of popular in the late 80s and 1990? I remember watching the 1992 world final few years ago and the commentators were saying stuff like Stephen certainly isn't used to all the crowd being against him considering the amount of suport he usually gets.

Being well known/popular is not the same with having many fans. Ebdon was also well known, doesn't mean people liked him.
In the 80s, Alex and Jimmy had more fans than Hendry.
In the 90s, Jimmy and ROS had more fans than Hendry.
Hendry influenced the sport in the way it's played, but he didn't draw many spectators cause he wasn't a flair player, he played only to win, never for the crowds.

Dan-cat wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:

Johnny Bravo wrote:For those of you who don't know what greatness is, let me enlighten you

Is Johnny B the next Dalai Lama?

Yes I am. Now bow down and praise me

Johnny is so authoritative in talking rubbish.

Johnny Bravo wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:

Johnny Bravo wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:Greater and better are the same bucking thing.

No, they are not.
I am better than someone at a sport if I can play that sport to a higher level.
I am greater only if I achieve greater things.

I'll use the same example again. Please answer me this: Do you believe Judd Trump's peak form is higher than that of Steve Davis ? Can he play better ?
If the answer is yes, why don't you also say Trump is greater ?!???????
Answer: cause you know he isn't. Not yet at least, he still has more to achieve in order for us to label him as such.

I think if Steve Davis were around today, starting out, he would be better than Trump. You pay no attention to tactical and safety nous. Davis was a better-rounded player. There are only three players in history that I regard as better than Steve Davis, and Judd Trump is not one of them.

Yes Judd is better than him, far better.
Trump's peak form is second all time to ROS.
Trump at his absolute best mops the floor with any version of Davis.
And I do pay attention to tactical and safety nous. Just like ROS, Trump has improved massively in those departments and can battle it out on even grounds with everyone in the history of the game.
You could say that the likes of Selbo, Higgins (fat one) and Davis have an extra 10 percents in those departments compared to ROS and Trump, but that's about it.
On the other hand, ROS and Trump are far better potters and breakbuilders.

I agree that Trump’s peak is better, but how exactly does that make him better full stop? Someone’s typical performance is a far better indicator of who the better player is than peak performance.

All this is ignoring the fact that Ding has also won more than Murphy, and comfortably enough at that. So how is Murphy greater how in any bucking way?

Pink Ball wrote:

Johnny Bravo wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:

Johnny Bravo wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:Greater and better are the same bucking thing.

No, they are not.
I am better than someone at a sport if I can play that sport to a higher level.
I am greater only if I achieve greater things.

I'll use the same example again. Please answer me this: Do you believe Judd Trump's peak form is higher than that of Steve Davis ? Can he play better ?
If the answer is yes, why don't you also say Trump is greater ?!???????
Answer: cause you know he isn't. Not yet at least, he still has more to achieve in order for us to label him as such.

I think if Steve Davis were around today, starting out, he would be better than Trump. You pay no attention to tactical and safety nous. Davis was a better-rounded player. There are only three players in history that I regard as better than Steve Davis, and Judd Trump is not one of them.

Yes Judd is better than him, far better.
Trump's peak form is second all time to ROS.
Trump at his absolute best mops the floor with any version of Davis.
And I do pay attention to tactical and safety nous. Just like ROS, Trump has improved massively in those departments and can battle it out on even grounds with everyone in the history of the game.
You could say that the likes of Selbo, Higgins (fat one) and Davis have an extra 10 percents in those departments compared to ROS and Trump, but that's about it.
On the other hand, ROS and Trump are far better potters and breakbuilders.

I agree that Trump’s peak is better, but how exactly does that make him better full stop? Someone’s typical performance is a far better indicator of who the better player is than peak performance.

If for example I can run the 100 m in 11 seconds and you can run it in 11.5, doesn't that mean I'm better than you ?!??
You could run 11.5 everyday for 10-15 years, while I would be running 11 just a few times a years in a 2 years time span, and it still wouldn't matter, I'd still be the better one, regardless of consistency and longevity.

Johnny Bravo wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:

Johnny Bravo wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:

Johnny Bravo wrote:No, they are not.
I am better than someone at a sport if I can play that sport to a higher level.
I am greater only if I achieve greater things.

I'll use the same example again. Please answer me this: Do you believe Judd Trump's peak form is higher than that of Steve Davis ? Can he play better ?
If the answer is yes, why don't you also say Trump is greater ?!???????
Answer: cause you know he isn't. Not yet at least, he still has more to achieve in order for us to label him as such.

I think if Steve Davis were around today, starting out, he would be better than Trump. You pay no attention to tactical and safety nous. Davis was a better-rounded player. There are only three players in history that I regard as better than Steve Davis, and Judd Trump is not one of them.

Yes Judd is better than him, far better.
Trump's peak form is second all time to ROS.
Trump at his absolute best mops the floor with any version of Davis.
And I do pay attention to tactical and safety nous. Just like ROS, Trump has improved massively in those departments and can battle it out on even grounds with everyone in the history of the game.
You could say that the likes of Selbo, Higgins (fat one) and Davis have an extra 10 percents in those departments compared to ROS and Trump, but that's about it.
On the other hand, ROS and Trump are far better potters and breakbuilders.

I agree that Trump’s peak is better, but how exactly does that make him better full stop? Someone’s typical performance is a far better indicator of who the better player is than peak performance.

If for example I can run the 100 m in 11 seconds and you can run it in 11.5, doesn't that mean I'm better than you ?!??
You could run 11.5 everyday for 10-15 years, while I would be running 11 just a few times a years in a 2 years time span, and it still wouldn't matter, I'd still be the better one, regardless of consistency and longevity.

Only if you can beat me on a consistent basis and achieve more than me against the same opposition. End of story.

Johnny Bravo wrote:

Iranu wrote:What are you talking about “artificially magnified”? Impact is what it is, there’s nothing artificial about it. Look at the swathe of young players from China and Asia since Ding. Who cares if it’s a huge country - it’s also a country with basically no history of snooker before the last 20 years. Ding put snooker on the map in China which has led to multiple tournaments being held there, a huge increase of TV coverage which helps with sponsorship etc.

Imagine Ding was never born. Any Chinese player that would have been successful would have increased TV coverage in China.
So my point is you shouldn't be influenced by the numbers. It's logical that since China is a big country, he's gonna have many supporters. But if for example he were from Malta, he'd have few supporters.
Apart from his fellow countrymen, Ding doesn't have that much of a fanbase.

Ok, I’ll be as clear as I can here: everything you’ve just said is completely irrelevant. Any other Chinese player DIDN’T become successful (and still nobody has come close to Ding). The most successful Chinese player outside of Ding is still Marco Fu who is 10 years older than him. Ding has changed the face of the snooker tour, almost literally. The fact that he comes from China is the entire point! What does Malta have to do with anything? The numbers are everything in this case, they are exactly what we should be influenced by.

Not to mention Ding is one of the most popular players on this forum, of which posters from China are a small minority.

Johnny Bravo wrote:

Iranu wrote:I also think that you’re overstating Ronnie’s impact on the game. Let’s be honest it’s nowhere close to Jimmy or Alex - there are other 80s players that would be ahead of him. I’d have Stephen Hendry ahead of him too because of how he changed the way the game is played, something that’s still the case 30+ years later. Let’s not forget that Ronnie’s era on the other hand coincided with a decline in snooker interest that has only been stopped since Hearn came in (and I still don’t think it’s really improved in the UK). I’m a huge fan of Ronnie but I don’t think he’s close to Alex and Jimmy in terms of impact.

Judd isn’t even close to the line of succession at the moment. He’s the dominant force but I don’t see anything that suggests he’s having an impact on snooker as a whole.

Iranu wrote:I also think that you’re overstating Ronnie’s impact on the game. Let’s be honest it’s nowhere close to Jimmy or Alex

Yes he is. He has the most supporters, just like they had.

Johnny Bravo wrote:

Iranu wrote:I also think that you’re overstating Ronnie’s impact on the game......- there are other 80s players that would be ahead of him.

Like whom ?! There is nobody else in the 80s that can be compared to him, apart from Jimmy and Alex.

He has the most supporters on the tour, yes. But that’s not the point. Impact on the game is not just what percentage of supporters a player has, it’s also about how popular THE SPORT ITSELF is, changes a player has made to the fabric of the game, how the game is seen by the masses. Jimmy and Alex along with several other 80s players were household names, big stars in their own right.

Who cares if a player has 80% of 1,000 fans if other players had 20% of 50,000 fans? Especially if those 1,000 fans turn to 900, 800, 700 over the course of a player’s peak years.

Ronnie for a long time was the only snooker player to be a household name, possibly still is. THAT IS NOT A GOOD THING FOR THE IMPACT OF THE GAME. He hasn’t changed the way the game is played like Alex, Davis or Hendry, he hasn’t caused a boom in popularity like Alex and Jimmy and other 80s players, he wasn’t part of the biggest snooker match in history like Davis and Taylor.

I love Ronnie but he doesn’t come close to Jimmy or Alex in terms of impact. Snooker is a footnote in sport at the moment and that’s only possibly changing since Hearn took over the game.

Johnny Bravo wrote:

Iranu wrote:I’d have Stephen Hendry ahead of him too because of how he changed the way the game is played, something that’s still the case 30+ years later.

Hendry did not have as many fans/supporters, and did not influence as many people to tune in to their TVs to watch the sport or to take it up and play it. Therefore he's not ahead.

Once again you’re completely missing the point. Hendry completely changed the game of snooker. He turned it from a tactical, bits-and-pieces game to the ultra aggressive sport focused on long potting and breakbuilding that we see today. He changed the percentages of snooker completely. That was 30 years ago and it’s STILL the case. Hendry’s way of playing is STILL the focus of of prime and young players. If you don’t see how that’s an enormous impact then I can’t help you.

Johnny Bravo wrote:

Iranu wrote:Judd isn’t even close to the line of succession at the moment. He’s the dominant force but I don’t see anything that suggests he’s having an impact on snooker as a whole.

Outside of ROS, he has the most fans. Therefore he is.

See my answer above. Having a big slice of a cake that’s getting smaller isn’t having a good impact. Anyway, Judd doesn’t have anywhere close to the number of supporters Ronnie has. Again, you can look at this forum for evidence of that.

If Judd’s the heir to the throne, snooker’s about to become a republic when Ronnie retires.

Johnny Bravo wrote:

Juddernaut88 wrote:Was Stephen Hendry not kind of popular in the late 80s and 1990? I remember watching the 1992 world final few years ago and the commentators were saying stuff like Stephen certainly isn't used to all the crowd being against him considering the amount of suport he usually gets.

Being well known/popular is not the same with having many fans. Ebdon was also well known, doesn't mean people liked him.
In the 80s, Alex and Jimmy had more fans than Hendry.
In the 90s, Jimmy and ROS had more fans than Hendry.
Hendry influenced the sport in the way it's played, but he didn't draw many spectators cause he wasn't a flair player, he played only to win, never for the crowds.

Every player who has won titles because of excellent attacking play since the early 90s owes their success to one Stephen Hendry. Every player who can make centuries for fun, regularly knocking in the long pots, owes their success to Stephen Hendry. Before him, the most successful attacking players were the inconsistent and erratic Jimmy and Alex.

Hendry himself not being a flair player has buck all to do with it. He proved to the world that you can play aggressive snooker and be a serial winner at the same time. There would be no Ronnie O’Sullivan as we know him without Stephen Hendry.

Pink Ball wrote:

Johnny Bravo wrote:If for example I can run the 100 m in 11 seconds and you can run it in 11.5, doesn't that mean I'm better than you ?!??
You could run 11.5 everyday for 10-15 years, while I would be running 11 just a few times a years in a 2 years time span, and it still wouldn't matter, I'd still be the better one, regardless of consistency and longevity.

Only if you can beat me on a consistent basis and achieve more than me against the same opposition. End of story.

I don't need to beat you or win anything, I'm better cause I can run faster. End of story.
If I don't do the things you said, I won't be as great as you, but I'd still be better.
That's how I see things.

Iranu wrote:Ok, I’ll be as clear as I can here: everything you’ve just said is completely irrelevant. Any other Chinese player DIDN’T become successful (and still nobody has come close to Ding). The most successful Chinese player outside of Ding is still Marco Fu who is 10 years older than him. Ding has changed the face of the snooker tour, almost literally. The fact that he comes from China is the entire point! What does Malta have to do with anything? The numbers are everything in this case, they are exactly what we should be influenced by.

No, no an hell no. It's pure faith that Ding is from China, not his merit or anything. He only gets those numbers due to nationality, so judging by them is completely unfair and unrealistic.

If we cancel/eliminate fellow countrymen from the total fanbase of the players, in the past 2 decades, guys like Ronnie and Trump have had more supporters than Ding.
So that means Ding hasn't had a bigger impact/influence.

Pink Ball wrote:All this is ignoring the fact that Ding has also won more than Murphy, and comfortably enough at that. So how is Murphy greater how in any bucking way?

he hasnt won the World title which Murphy has. The (by far) most important title. The difference between 1 and 0 World titles is a huge gap. A much bigger gap than it would be between lets say 4 and 3. Not mathematically but legacy wise.

Murphy can call himself a World Champion, Ding can't. And its not like Murphy is a Johnson or Dott who has only won the World title but nothing else. He has done ok in the other events. Not as well as Ding but still decent.

Johnny Bravo wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:

Johnny Bravo wrote:If for example I can run the 100 m in 11 seconds and you can run it in 11.5, doesn't that mean I'm better than you ?!??
You could run 11.5 everyday for 10-15 years, while I would be running 11 just a few times a years in a 2 years time span, and it still wouldn't matter, I'd still be the better one, regardless of consistency and longevity.

Only if you can beat me on a consistent basis and achieve more than me against the same opposition. End of story.

I don't need to beat you or win anything, I'm better cause I can run faster. End of story.
If I don't do the things you said, I won't be as great as you, but I'd still be better.
That's how I see things.

Blind buck.

TheRocket wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:All this is ignoring the fact that Ding has also won more than Murphy, and comfortably enough at that. So how is Murphy greater how in any bucking way?

he hasnt won the World title which Murphy has. The (by far) most important title. The difference between 1 and 0 World titles is a huge gap. A much bigger gap than it would be between lets say 4 and 3. Not mathematically but legacy wise.

Murphy can call himself a World Champion, Ding can't. And its not like Murphy is a Johnson or Dott who has only won the World title but nothing else. He has done ok in the other events. Not as well as Ding but still decent.

So that’s it then? One trophy the other guy doesn’t have, and it’s end of story?

Pink Ball wrote:

TheRocket wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:All this is ignoring the fact that Ding has also won more than Murphy, and comfortably enough at that. So how is Murphy greater how in any bucking way?

he hasnt won the World title which Murphy has. The (by far) most important title. The difference between 1 and 0 World titles is a huge gap. A much bigger gap than it would be between lets say 4 and 3. Not mathematically but legacy wise.

Murphy can call himself a World Champion, Ding can't. And its not like Murphy is a Johnson or Dott who has only won the World title but nothing else. He has done ok in the other events. Not as well as Ding but still decent.

So that’s it then? One trophy the other guy doesn’t have, and it’s end of story?

No. All I say is , this is a close call.

You have one guy who won the World title and done ok in the other events and another guy who hasnt won the World title but done relatively good in the other events. It balances itself out.

Iranu wrote:He has the most supporters on the tour, yes. But that’s not the point. Impact on the game is not just what percentage of supporters a player has, it’s also about how popular THE SPORT ITSELF is, changes a player has made to the fabric of the game, how the game is seen by the masses.

Completely agree with you on that. But ROS is the reason many watch the sport or have taken up the sport.

So, basically impact on the sport means 3 things:
- the ability to draw a bigger audience and playing public to the sport;
- the ability to influence people to take up the sport;
- the changes you make to the fabric of the sport.

ROS ticks the first 2 boxes perfectly and even in the 3rd one he's doing more than ok, since most of the young players try to emulate his style of play.

Pink Ball wrote:

TheRocket wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:All this is ignoring the fact that Ding has also won more than Murphy, and comfortably enough at that. So how is Murphy greater how in any bucking way?

he hasnt won the World title which Murphy has. The (by far) most important title. The difference between 1 and 0 World titles is a huge gap. A much bigger gap than it would be between lets say 4 and 3. Not mathematically but legacy wise.

Murphy can call himself a World Champion, Ding can't. And its not like Murphy is a Johnson or Dott who has only won the World title but nothing else. He has done ok in the other events. Not as well as Ding but still decent.

So that’s it then? One trophy the other guy doesn’t have, and it’s end of story?

Yes, cause things are pretty even in the other departments in terms of achievements:
- Smurf has 9 rankers, 4 minor rankers and 11 non-rankers compared to Ding's 14 rankers, 4 minor rankers and 4 non-rankers
- Smurf has 532 tons, Ding has 540
- Smurf has won the UK and the Masters, just as Ding.

Smurf has the edge cause he won the WC and also played 2 other finals.

Iranu wrote:Who cares if a player has 80% of 1,000 fans if other players had 20% of 50,000 fans? Especially if those 1,000 fans turn to 900, 800, 700 over the course of a player’s peak years.

That decline in numbers is due to outside factors, and no player's fault.
For example, boxing was bigger sport in the 20s and 30s than it is today, the Heavyweight division was more popular in the 70s than say in the 00s, but that's not someone's fault or merit.

People have a multitude of sports to choose from today, they have a huge number of possibilities to spend their free time.

Johnny Bravo wrote:

Iranu wrote:Ok, I’ll be as clear as I can here: everything you’ve just said is completely irrelevant. Any other Chinese player DIDN’T become successful (and still nobody has come close to Ding). The most successful Chinese player outside of Ding is still Marco Fu who is 10 years older than him. Ding has changed the face of the snooker tour, almost literally. The fact that he comes from China is the entire point! What does Malta have to do with anything? The numbers are everything in this case, they are exactly what we should be influenced by.

No, no an hell no. It's pure faith that Ding is from China, not his merit or anything. He only gets those numbers due to nationality, so judging by them is completely unfair and unrealistic.

If we cancel/eliminate fellow countrymen from the total fanbase of the players, in the past 2 decades, guys like Ronnie and Trump have had more supporters than Ding.
So that means Ding hasn't had a bigger impact/influence.

This is ridiculous. It’s also “pure faith” that Ronnie O’Sullivan was born in England and not in Papua New Guinea. It’s also “pure faith” that he had rich parents who could afford to build him a snooker room and pay pros to play against him from a young age. All that is irrelevant when discussing impact.

By your logic, Jimmy only had a bigger impact than Kirk Stevens because he’s English and appealed to other English youngsters where the game was more popular than Canada.

As I’ve just told you, this forum is perfect evidence that Ding has huge numbers of followers outside China. Ronnie has more obviously, possibly Judd too. Even so, I’d say Ding is the third most supported player on this forum. And if that was the only factor you might have a point. But I’ve already explained to you why that’s not the case.

The fact that China's a big country doesn’t negate its impact for buck’s sake. Why didn’t Marco Fu have the same impact, then? Could it possibly be because he’s nowhere near as successful as Ding???

Johnny Bravo wrote:

Iranu wrote:He has the most supporters on the tour, yes. But that’s not the point. Impact on the game is not just what percentage of supporters a player has, it’s also about how popular THE SPORT ITSELF is, changes a player has made to the fabric of the game, how the game is seen by the masses.

Completely agree with you on that. But ROS is the reason many watch the sport or have taken up the sport.

So, basically impact on the sport means 3 things:
- the ability to draw a bigger audience and playing public to the sport;
- the ability to influence people to take up the sport;
- the changes you make to the fabric of the sport.

ROS ticks the first 2 boxes perfectly and even in the 3rd one he's doing more than ok, since most of the young players try to emulate his style of play.

You realise Ding ticks all three of those boxes perfectly, right? You’re not blind?

And by the way, Ronnie’s style of play is Hendry’s style of play, Ronnie doesn’t get all the credit for that. Maybe he would, if young players were copying his excellent breakbuilding AND his safety play. But they’re not.

Johnny Bravo wrote:

Iranu wrote:Who cares if a player has 80% of 1,000 fans if other players had 20% of 50,000 fans? Especially if those 1,000 fans turn to 900, 800, 700 over the course of a player’s peak years.

That decline in numbers is due to outside factors, and no player's fault.
For example, boxing was bigger sport in the 20s and 30s than it is today, the Heavyweight division was more popular in the 70s than say in the 00s, but that's not someone's fault or merit.

People have a multitude of sports to choose from today, they have a huge number of possibilities to spend their free time.

I’m not saying it’s Ronnie’s fault. I’m saying his peak years did nothing to turn it around.

I do get your point about people having more choice. But look at the difference relatively speaking. Why has snooker suffered more than tennis, or golf, or other sports?