Alex0paul wrote:Johnny Bravo wrote:Neal Foulds has given the best argument to why Ronnie is superior to Hendry: Hendry didn't manage to win anything relevant after he turned 30. Not 35, not 40, but 30 !!! That says it all.
To make an analogy to other sports, Tiger Woods has 14 majors compared to Jack Nicklaus's 18, yet everyone who has watched that sport will admit Tiger is the best ever.
Here's the review of the UK final: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IHLEDw7Mls&t=221s
The debate about greatness starts at about 2:45
He didn't need to win anything after he was 30
I find it interesting that that those talk of Ronnie being the best due to how quickly he plays are quick discount how quickly Hendry amassed his title haul.
Golf is even harder than snooker to make comparisons across generations, equipment/technology has drastically changed the game. Persimmon woods of the Nicklaus era compared to those used in Tigers is like comparing snooker balls from the 1800s to those used today
- Posts: 1416
- Joined: 05 October 2009
- Location: Toronto
- Snooker Idol: White-Hendry-ROS
- Highest Break: 147