Holden Chinaski wrote: Jester82 wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:Whatever.
I was talking about how nobody could have beaten Ronnie in the 2005 Masters final, not even prime Hendry. Then someone answered me prime Hendry would have kept Ronnie in his seat. So I answered that's not true because Ronnie beat prime Hendry in two UK finals, and Ronnie was playing much better in the 2005 masters final than in the 1992 and 1997 UK finals. But now those UK finals don't count because it's not the world championship?????????
I am a big Hendry fan. Hendry was amazing in his prime. But the way Ronnie was playing in the 2005 Masters final against Higgins, nobody could have beaten him, not even prime Hendry.
That's all for me now.
Do we all have to share your opinion on this kind of wisdom about ROS?
No, definitely not. But use good arguments. Not theories with holes in them.
You came up with a hypothesis, which states, that one of Ronnie's performances was so outstanding, no other player would have stood a chance that day...and then you talk about leaky arguments. Get outta here!
If there is no argument, one does not need to counter. Therefore no holes at all.