Iranu wrote:You say he’s at the level of McManus or Kirk Stevens despite winning more than both of them (and in my opinion doing so in probably the strongest era in snooker) by the time he died, and as we’ve established he was only 27. So he’d already won more and would in all likelihood gone on to win at least a couple more still.
I’m not sure how three Masters wins can be “Joe Johnson-esque”. One sure, possibly two, but three is more than just an anomaly. I mean look at Selby, he also won two Masters and got to another final while holding only one Welsh Open as a ranker (if I’ve read his Wiki right). It took him another two seasons to win another ranker.
You're only looking at outright wins. Which is the anomaly of Hunter. He seemed to be bottom or top. The comparison with Selby is interesting as Selby had already been a runner-up at the Worlds long before he won it, right at the early stages of his career, and went on to be a regular finalist at lots of events, he just didn't win them. Hunter on the other hand didn't have many finals at all, but those few he did get to he seemed to win. Hence the Joe Johnsonesque. Someone who is either round 1/2 or a winner.
Hunter's score sheet:
95/96 - 1 x SF
96/97 - 1 x QF
97/98 - 1 x W
98/99 - 1 x SF, 2 x QF
99/00 - 1 x SF
00/01 - 2 x QF, 2 x SF, 1 x F, 1 x W
01/02 - 2 x W
02/03 - 3 x QF, 4 x SF, 1 x W
03/04 - 3 x QF, 1 x F, 1 x W
04/05 - 1 x QF, 1 x SF
the 01/02 season where he won two titles, every single other event was either r1 or r2.
Now compare to McManus' early career:
90/91 - 1 x SF
91/92 - 2 x QF, 2 x SF, 1 x F
92/93 - 2 x QF, 6 x SF, 3 x F
93/94 - 2 x QF, 5 x SF, 3 x F, 1 x W
94/95 - 2 x QF, 1 x SF, 1 x F, 1 X W
95/96 - 3 x SF, 1 x W
96/97 - 3 x QF, 3 x SF, 1 x F
97/98 - 3 x QF, 1 x F
98/99 - 3 x QF, 2 x SF, 2 x F
99/00 - 2 x QF - and at this point McManus has been classified as 'gone off the boil' generally, as is a common thing to happen to players.
You can compare wins to Selby & ignore the wider stats, I can compare him to McManus and include wider stats. Neither of us is right and neither of us is wrong, but we are both allowed our perceptions. Its not something to get angry about.
Iranu wrote:As HC has said, a diagnosis doesn’t happen as soon as you get the disease. He’d been suffering stomach issues for a while from what I remember and it’s no surprise his form had dipped. With 2001-2002 I think you may been looking at 2003-2004 as he won the Welsh and Masters in 01-02. Regardss, show me a top player who has a good season every single season? Or alternatively show me a journeyman who wins the Masters during a poor season?
Well Ken Docherty won the Welsh Open twice and I regularly hear people say Ken underperformed generally away from the WSC. So I guess the point is, why did Hunter underperform away from The Masters? Ken was a finalist at the Master twice too. But then Ken was someone who regularly appeared in finals generally and won quite a few of them.
If I can regularly hear people say "Ken was a bit rubbish away from the WSC", why can't people be allowed to say "Hunter was a bit rubbish away from the Masters"?
Ken isn't a journeyman player, so I'm clearly suggesting Ken is a better fit for this game we're playing than Hunter. However, would people vote for Robertson over Ken in this competition? If Yes, then how can Ken be better than Hunter, Hunter better than Robertson, and Robertson better then Ken?
Iranu wrote:Referring to “the cult of the Hunter” is frankly offensive. I actually kind of agree with you about how people react when it comes to the loss of someone they don’t really know. But Paul Hunter was an attractive, likeable, talented person who was very popular even before his health problems and for you to dismiss that as a deranged cult is insane.
Not really. It's actually the reverse. We regularly refer to the cult of Higgins (Alex) or the cult of Ronnie fans and the like and no-one would comment. But you take offence when someone suggest a cult of Hunter? That's what the essence is. And we'll have a look at this in more detail in the next paragraph.
Iranu wrote:It’s one thing to question how the masses responded to his death, although even in that case I’d say there’s a huge difference between someone dying at 27 and someone dying at 90. Someone you’ve watched for years dying at 27 can make you question your own mortality even if you don’t care so much about the person himself and this alone can cause profound emotional response. Hell, people can break down over the death of fixtional characters.
But to call into question the legitimacy of players’ responses is a horrendous thing to say. “rubbish happens” indeed. These are people who no matter how well they knew Hunter would nonetheless have been spending significant periods of time around him for years.
Regarding this and the kid in your school: IT’S NOT ABOUT YOU. When a child dies, I don’t think some overwrought tributes are the worst thing in the world. It’s for the benefit of the family and the friends who DID know him. Likewise, any tributes by players even if insincere were given for the benefit of the people Hunter left behind.
[/quote]
All of which assumes that all people will react to death in the same way and that all people are supposed to have the exact same reaction to death. You have no idea how oppressive you're being.
A death can be many things to many people. It is not unusual for a culture to treat death not as a mourning of loss, but rather a celebration of life.
While there is obviously a lot of crying and wailing in the immediate wake of a death, the funeral and resultant 'celebrations' that are to follow can as equally be a happy time where everyone cherishes the life that has been had. People are allowed to be happy, joke, dance and generally make merry. To act as if the person was still there with you, sharing in the enjoyment they gave during their lifetime. "Having a beer on me."
I have an Auntie, for example, who loved life and was always very joyous & wanted her funeral to be a joyous affair. She even had "Come on Baby Light My Fire" be her choice of music for when she entered the crematorium.
Likewise, culturally, one of the most famous culturally relevant bands of the Hunter era was Bare Naked Ladies who had the smash hit "One Week" with the very famous lyrics "I'm the kind of guy that laughs at a funeral".
It's perfectly fine for you to have your perception of what death and reaction to death should be, but to force that onto others is actually the real "offensive" aspect of your position. To imply that there is only one way someone should allowed to react, only one way to respond and to only highlight people you think might be 'offended' by the wrong reaction.
I have nothing against Hunter. What happened to him was truly tragic & I wouldn't wish such a thing on my worst enemy. But I wouldn't let what happened to him sour my relationship with others not use his death to force my own projections onto other people, nor would I let it prevent me from discussing how other people reacted to his death.
I have no objection to you talking about how you perceived the time around his death nor how you wish to perceive others, but to speculate that none of the PR that accompanied his death was not over the top nor hysterical is as much speculation as me suggesting is was.
We can never know what other people are thinking, we can just speculate. Talk about these things. But if you're going to "shut people down" and get "offended" at the mere notion of a conversation, then, yes, that is EXACTLY what a cult is. That is precisely the point.