Post a reply

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby Pink Ball

vodkadiet1 wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:By the way, they won their world titles when Hendry was at his peak as well. You know, that whole inconvenient truth?


Hendry was well past his best in the 2000s. In fact Hendry was past his best when he won his 7th World title in 1999. The other semi finalists were peak O'Sullivan, Williams and Higgins.

Past his prime at 30? Tell me another one! One of snooker's great myths. I was convinced I'd never see another player as good as Hendry in my lifetime, but he failed spectacularly after turning the ripe old age of 27. Too spectacularly to ignore.

And oddly, his game did not look like it had declined at all. Funny that.

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby vodkadiet1

Pink Ball wrote:
vodkadiet1 wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:By the way, they won their world titles when Hendry was at his peak as well. You know, that whole inconvenient truth?


Hendry was well past his best in the 2000s. In fact Hendry was past his best when he won his 7th World title in 1999. The other semi finalists were peak O'Sullivan, Williams and Higgins.

Past his prime at 30? Tell me another one! One of snooker's great myths. I was convinced I'd never see another player as good as Hendry in my lifetime, but he failed spectacularly after turning the ripe old age of 27. Too spectacularly to ignore.

And oddly, his game did not look like it had declined at all. Funny that.


Can you please send me some of the drugs you are taking? Life can get awfully boring.

:-D

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby Pink Ball

vodkadiet1 wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:
vodkadiet1 wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:By the way, they won their world titles when Hendry was at his peak as well. You know, that whole inconvenient truth?


Hendry was well past his best in the 2000s. In fact Hendry was past his best when he won his 7th World title in 1999. The other semi finalists were peak O'Sullivan, Williams and Higgins.

Past his prime at 30? Tell me another one! One of snooker's great myths. I was convinced I'd never see another player as good as Hendry in my lifetime, but he failed spectacularly after turning the ripe old age of 27. Too spectacularly to ignore.

And oddly, his game did not look like it had declined at all. Funny that.


Can you please send me some of the drugs you are taking? Life can get awfully boring.

:-D

I don't take drugs. I just know the game better than anyone has ever known it, with the possible-but-still-unlikely exception of Clive Everton.

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby Andre147

To say Hendry was past his best by 99 is just a poor excuse.

He kept reaching Triple Crown Finals until 2003. His opponents were just better than him, that's all.

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby vodkadiet1

Pink Ball wrote:
vodkadiet1 wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:
vodkadiet1 wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:By the way, they won their world titles when Hendry was at his peak as well. You know, that whole inconvenient truth?


Hendry was well past his best in the 2000s. In fact Hendry was past his best when he won his 7th World title in 1999. The other semi finalists were peak O'Sullivan, Williams and Higgins.

Past his prime at 30? Tell me another one! One of snooker's great myths. I was convinced I'd never see another player as good as Hendry in my lifetime, but he failed spectacularly after turning the ripe old age of 27. Too spectacularly to ignore.

And oddly, his game did not look like it had declined at all. Funny that.


Can you please send me some of the drugs you are taking? Life can get awfully boring.

:-D

I don't take drugs. I just know the game better than anyone has ever known it, with the possible-but-still-unlikely exception of Clive Everton.


You can fool some of the people some of the time.....

I saw that differently with my eyes. You are just plain wrong but no doubt you will come back with some more meaningless tripe.

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby Pink Ball

I tried to play down Hendry's stunning decline post-1996, when he should have been coming into his peak years, but after O'Sullivan won his fifth world title I just couldn't ignore what was staring me in the face. I wanted Hendry to be the greater of the two, but all logic pointed elsewhere. O'Sullivan had dethroned him.

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby vodkadiet1

Pink Ball wrote:I tried to play down Hendry's stunning decline post-1996, when he should have been coming into his peak years, but after O'Sullivan won his fifth world title I just couldn't ignore what was staring me in the face. I wanted Hendry to be the greater of the two, but all logic pointed elsewhere. O'Sullivan had dethroned him.


All this happened when Hendry had broken the most relevant record and became bored with the game and the inferior opposition, which included the class of 92.

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby Iranu

Even Davis was winning the Masters in 1997 against what Vodka no doubt considers a peak Ronnie. He was 39.

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby Pink Ball

vodkadiet1 wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:
vodkadiet1 wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:
vodkadiet1 wrote:Hendry was well past his best in the 2000s. In fact Hendry was past his best when he won his 7th World title in 1999. The other semi finalists were peak O'Sullivan, Williams and Higgins.

Past his prime at 30? Tell me another one! One of snooker's great myths. I was convinced I'd never see another player as good as Hendry in my lifetime, but he failed spectacularly after turning the ripe old age of 27. Too spectacularly to ignore.

And oddly, his game did not look like it had declined at all. Funny that.


Can you please send me some of the drugs you are taking? Life can get awfully boring.

:-D

I don't take drugs. I just know the game better than anyone has ever known it, with the possible-but-still-unlikely exception of Clive Everton.


You can fool some of the people some of the time.....

I saw that differently with my eyes. You are just plain wrong but no doubt you will come back with some more meaningless tripe.

What, did my eyes deceive me, and did Hendry's results not decline spectacularly after he turned 27? Have I misremembered something? Is that figment of my imagination meaningless tripe?

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby Pink Ball

vodkadiet1 wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:I tried to play down Hendry's stunning decline post-1996, when he should have been coming into his peak years, but after O'Sullivan won his fifth world title I just couldn't ignore what was staring me in the face. I wanted Hendry to be the greater of the two, but all logic pointed elsewhere. O'Sullivan had dethroned him.


All this happened when Hendry had broken the most relevant record and became bored with the game and the inferior opposition, which included the class of 92.

Was it boredom and lack of motivation that brought him to tears after losing to Robert Milkins in 2012? Didn't sound like the reaction of an unmotivated, feckless individual to me.

He failed, kiddo, with the permanent GOAT tag at his mercy.

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby vodkadiet1

Iranu wrote:Even Davis was winning the Masters in 1997 against what Vodka no doubt considers a peak Ronnie. He was 39.


No. A peak O'Sullivan played David Gray in The Worlds in 2000. His break building on those tougher tables was phenomenal in that opening session. Gray did very well to hang on to his coat tails.

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby vodkadiet1

Pink Ball wrote:
vodkadiet1 wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:I tried to play down Hendry's stunning decline post-1996, when he should have been coming into his peak years, but after O'Sullivan won his fifth world title I just couldn't ignore what was staring me in the face. I wanted Hendry to be the greater of the two, but all logic pointed elsewhere. O'Sullivan had dethroned him.


All this happened when Hendry had broken the most relevant record and became bored with the game and the inferior opposition, which included the class of 92.

Was it boredom and lack of motivation that brought him to tears after losing to Robert Milkins in 2012? Didn't sound like the reaction of an unmotivated, feckless individual to me.

He failed, kiddo, with the permanent GOAT tag at his mercy.


You might fool more inexperienced posters with your 'I am the font of all snooker knowledge' idiocy but it doesn't wash with me. I was there. But I won't spoil your little show if it makes you happy.

This is just harmless fun after all.

<ok>

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby vodkadiet1

Pink Ball wrote:
Iranu wrote:Even Davis was winning the Masters in 1997 against what Vodka no doubt considers a peak Ronnie. He was 39.

Ronnie O'Sullivan had the tactical brain of Charles Ingram in 1997.


That is actually quite funny!

:hatoff:

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby Pink Ball

vodkadiet1 wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:
vodkadiet1 wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:I tried to play down Hendry's stunning decline post-1996, when he should have been coming into his peak years, but after O'Sullivan won his fifth world title I just couldn't ignore what was staring me in the face. I wanted Hendry to be the greater of the two, but all logic pointed elsewhere. O'Sullivan had dethroned him.


All this happened when Hendry had broken the most relevant record and became bored with the game and the inferior opposition, which included the class of 92.

Was it boredom and lack of motivation that brought him to tears after losing to Robert Milkins in 2012? Didn't sound like the reaction of an unmotivated, feckless individual to me.

He failed, kiddo, with the permanent GOAT tag at his mercy.


You might fool more inexperienced posters with your 'I am the font of all snooker knowledge' idiocy but it doesn't wash with me. I was there. But I won't spoil your little show if it makes you happy.

This is just harmless fun after all.

<ok>

You are getting annoyed as you know in your heart that what I am saying is true. You will now respond to this message by insisting that you are not annoyed, but you will use language that belies your claim.

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby Andre147

vodkadiet1 wrote:
Iranu wrote:Even Davis was winning the Masters in 1997 against what Vodka no doubt considers a peak Ronnie. He was 39.


No. A peak O'Sullivan played David Gray in The Worlds in 2000. His break building on those tougher tables was phenomenal in that opening session. Gray did very well to hang on to his coat tails.


How Gray won that match I dont know, but he had one of the craziest flukes I've seen in the decider. If not for that ROS might have won.

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby vodkadiet1

Pink Ball wrote:
vodkadiet1 wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:
vodkadiet1 wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:I tried to play down Hendry's stunning decline post-1996, when he should have been coming into his peak years, but after O'Sullivan won his fifth world title I just couldn't ignore what was staring me in the face. I wanted Hendry to be the greater of the two, but all logic pointed elsewhere. O'Sullivan had dethroned him.


All this happened when Hendry had broken the most relevant record and became bored with the game and the inferior opposition, which included the class of 92.

Was it boredom and lack of motivation that brought him to tears after losing to Robert Milkins in 2012? Didn't sound like the reaction of an unmotivated, feckless individual to me.

He failed, kiddo, with the permanent GOAT tag at his mercy.


You might fool more inexperienced posters with your 'I am the font of all snooker knowledge' idiocy but it doesn't wash with me. I was there. But I won't spoil your little show if it makes you happy.

This is just harmless fun after all.

<ok>

You are getting annoyed as you know in your heart that what I am saying is true. You will now respond to this message by insisting that you are not annoyed, but you will use language that belies your claim.


Not a bad reply but you will only convince those who have short memories or didn't experience it first hand, or have an extreme bias. I will give it to you that you conceal your hatred for Hendry very well. I was neutral most of the time and I also disliked Hendry, particularly when he won in 99. But when the red mist cleared I saw reality.

In the future please focus on the players and not on those who don't hold you in as high a regard as you feel you deserve. It is wasted energy.

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby Iranu

vodkadiet1 wrote:
Iranu wrote:Even Davis was winning the Masters in 1997 against what Vodka no doubt considers a peak Ronnie. He was 39.


No. A peak O'Sullivan played David Gray in The Worlds in 2000. His break building on those tougher tables was phenomenal in that opening session. Gray did very well to hang on to his coat tails.

A few minutes ago he was already at his peak by 1999 at least.

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby Pink Ball

vodkadiet1 wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:
vodkadiet1 wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:
vodkadiet1 wrote:
All this happened when Hendry had broken the most relevant record and became bored with the game and the inferior opposition, which included the class of 92.

Was it boredom and lack of motivation that brought him to tears after losing to Robert Milkins in 2012? Didn't sound like the reaction of an unmotivated, feckless individual to me.

He failed, kiddo, with the permanent GOAT tag at his mercy.


You might fool more inexperienced posters with your 'I am the font of all snooker knowledge' idiocy but it doesn't wash with me. I was there. But I won't spoil your little show if it makes you happy.

This is just harmless fun after all.

<ok>

You are getting annoyed as you know in your heart that what I am saying is true. You will now respond to this message by insisting that you are not annoyed, but you will use language that belies your claim.


Not a bad reply but you will only convince those who have short memories or didn't experience it first hand, or have an extreme bias. I will give it to you that you conceal your hatred for Hendry very well. I was neutral most of the time and I also disliked Hendry, particularly when he won in 99. But when the red mist cleared I saw reality.

In the future please focus on the players and not on those who don't hold you in as high a regard as you feel you deserve. It is wasted energy.

That’s a good boy.

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby Holden Chinaski

I'm pretty sure Vodka doesn't watch a lot of snooker and never has done. A bit of a casual fan. He knows buck all about snooker. This thread is becoming a bit embarrassing for him.

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby Holden Chinaski

You won't find a bigger Hendry fan than me, he was brilliant in his prime. But he failed to adapt his game to new players such as the class of '92. This is where Ronnie is better than Hendry, he can adapt his style to be able to be competitive against newer generations. Ronnie never stops working on his game, he keeps changing stuff, he keeps learning from younger players. Hendry was brilliant but he was a one-trick pony and his decline was just terrible.

A bit like Mike Tyson, Hendry was great as long as he was dominating. As soon as he started losing, when there were younger players around who could compete with his break building, he was gone. He was a beast in his prime, but he never overcame adversity after he started losing. Very much like Mike Tyson.

Ronnie also has had moments in his career where he started losing a lot. There were moments in his career when people were saying his winning days were over. But he keeps working, he keeps perfecting his game, he works on the mental aspect, works on his cue action... And he keeps coming back and winning the big titles again. He overcomes adversity. This is why he's still playing great despite being 45 years old. This is why he's the GOAT.

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby SnookerFan

Holden Chinaski wrote:You won't find a bigger Hendry fan than me, he was brilliant in his prime. But he failed to adapt his game to new players such as the class of '92. This is where Ronnie is better than Hendry, he can adapt his style to be able to be competitive against newer generations. Ronnie never stops working on his game, he keeps changing stuff, he keeps learning from younger players. Hendry was brilliant but he was a one-trick pony and his decline was just terrible.

A bit like Mike Tyson, Hendry was great as long as he was dominating. As soon as he started losing, when there were younger players around who could compete with his break building, he was gone. He was a beast in his prime, but he never overcame adversity after he started losing. Very much like Mike Tyson.

Ronnie also has had moments in his career where he started losing a lot. There were moments in his career when people were saying his winning days were over. But he keeps working, he keeps perfecting his game, he works on the mental aspect, works on his cue action... And he keeps coming back and winning the big titles again. He overcomes adversity. This is why he's still playing great despite being 45 years old. This is why he's the GOAT.


DECLINE!

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby Cloud Strife

Andre147 wrote:
vodkadiet1 wrote:
Iranu wrote:Even Davis was winning the Masters in 1997 against what Vodka no doubt considers a peak Ronnie. He was 39.


No. A peak O'Sullivan played David Gray in The Worlds in 2000. His break building on those tougher tables was phenomenal in that opening session. Gray did very well to hang on to his coat tails.


How Gray won that match I dont know, but he had one of the craziest flukes I've seen in the decider. If not for that ROS might have won.


Gray was Judd Trump before Judd Trump was even a thing.

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby Holden Chinaski

Dan-cat wrote:Keep slinging those 50ps in the quasi-troll meter. 5 pages in <laugh> <laugh>

Stupidity is hard to ignore sometimes. Especially when it's combined with arrogance.

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby vodkadiet1

Holden Chinaski wrote:
Dan-cat wrote:Keep slinging those 50ps in the quasi-troll meter. 5 pages in <laugh> <laugh>

Stupidity is hard to ignore sometimes. Especially when it's combined with arrogance.


And you would know all about that. I blame the fact that you have taken too many punches to the brain that you talk so much drivel.

Boxing isn't good for your health.

:-)

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby vodkadiet1

As i said earlier all these threads become like a Brexit forum with the O'Sullivan fantards becoming like the Brexiteers and having nothing meaningful to say and anything that is said is wholly inaccurate.

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby Andre147

Holden Chinaski wrote:You won't find a bigger Hendry fan than me, he was brilliant in his prime. But he failed to adapt his game to new players such as the class of '92. This is where Ronnie is better than Hendry, he can adapt his style to be able to be competitive against newer generations. Ronnie never stops working on his game, he keeps changing stuff, he keeps learning from younger players. Hendry was brilliant but he was a one-trick pony and his decline was just terrible.

A bit like Mike Tyson, Hendry was great as long as he was dominating. As soon as he started losing, when there were younger players around who could compete with his break building, he was gone. He was a beast in his prime, but he never overcame adversity after he started losing. Very much like Mike Tyson.

Ronnie also has had moments in his career where he started losing a lot. There were moments in his career when people were saying his winning days were over. But he keeps working, he keeps perfecting his game, he works on the mental aspect, works on his cue action... And he keeps coming back and winning the big titles again. He overcomes adversity. This is why he's still playing great despite being 45 years old. This is why he's the GOAT.


Great post mate!

Only a fool thinks Hendry was past his prime after 1996 or even 1999. he kept reaching TC Finals and winning titles until 2003. After 2003, that's when his game started to go downhill, mainly because there were just better players than him and he couldn't adapt his game.

Re: Are they both "geniuses" ?

Postby Pink Ball

From 1997 to 2005, Stephen Hendry played in 23 ranking finals. He won 10 of them. Two of his wins were against Graeme Dott, one against Joe Perry, one against Tony Drago and one against Mark King.

Of his 23 ranking finals in that time, he played 14 against the five best players of the late '90s and early '00s: Ronnie O'Sullivan, John Higgins, Mark Williams, Peter Ebdon and Ken Doherty. He won four and lost 10. He lost five of those between 1997 and 1999 alone, winning none. Three of those finals were in 1997.

He played in seven triple-crown finals between 1997 and 2003 (one a year, effectively). He won one of them, in 1999, against Mark Williams. All the finals he lost were against one of the five aforementioned players, with the exception of the 2003 UK final against Matthew Stevens.

Moral of the story: Stephen Hendry was competing hard and competing well. The motivation was clearly still there; he was making finals all the time. But over the longer matches, after he turned 27, he was rarely good enough against the very best.

He also played in one triple-crown final beyond that period, against Peter Ebdon in the 2006 UK Championship, but he lost of course.

Fatally undermines his claim to being the greatest of all time.