by edwards2000 » 05 Mar 2014 Read
I would have replied earlier, but some fellow who is completely against the right to free speech, while pursuing a pathetic agenda, decider to ban me for a day (again), even though he clearly left other much worse posts alone. So I really am disappearing elsewhere soon until he is gone.
------------------
I've read through the replies here.
Firstly, gj, I am not interested that you know my full name. By using it, you seem to be under this impression that it gives you some hold over me. If I didn't want you to know it, then you wouldn't know it. I actually take it as a compliment that my opinions and views are such a threat to you, that you would remember it so clearly. Secondly, your question as to whether I consider Federer GOAT despite "weak era"- yes I do.
a. Tennis eras have never been weak or had a closed shop in the Open Era, like snooker, so the comparison is absurd.
b. Federer is the greatest, not just due to titles and accolades, but because, just like with Ronnie, he has maintained a high standard and won the greatest Slam in his 30s (and is the second oldest to do this. He did this competing against a field that included Djokovic and Nadal).
c. Federer is more gifted than any other player since Borg. There is a very good argument for making Borg the GOAT, but certainly not Nadal, who has overachieved due to the slowing down and dumbing down of conditions to favour negative baseline play.
Federer was the GOAT for me when he was still on 4 Slams. Why? Because you can see the artistry, talent, and ability there. Like you can with Ronnie. Some people, such as yourself, are obsessed with reducing this argument to titles won. I had Ronnie as the greatest player, and Federer as the greatest player, LONG before the masses started to agree with me. And I did so based on an appreciation of the respective games and respective talents of those involved.
Titles are not the be all and end all of this argument. There comes a time when comparing greats has to be more than what they have won. Certainly, 7 World titles and 5 world titles are not significant, especially when you consider that snooker was a closed shop for years, and it truly was a weaker era than today. There is no doubt about that whatsoever, and Hendry has admitted it on at least 3 different occasions. Ronnie had to prime with Higgins, Williams, Doherty, Hunter and others. Hendry had White, Parrott, and Bond.
----------------
On others:
Ronnie may claim that the moon is made of cheese, but that does not make him correct. We can watch his earlier matches and we can see that he was definitely not a better player from 17-21 compared to today. No way. Ronnie is well known for double talk, self doubt and hyperbole. He constantly changes his mind and makes contradictory statements. No 16 or 17 year old is a better player than their later years. That's not just common sense, it's based on every piece of available evidence. To try and win an argument by claiming Ronnie was a better player at 16 is the most desperate kind of reasoning there is.
Ronnie holds a greater h2h against Hendry and did so narrowly even in Hendry's prime (and before someone mentions tennis again, this is snooker... a game where the surfaces and conditions are the same all the time, generally. It's a completely different thing to Federer v Moonballer).
Having superior break-building, safety and h2h is a great start, and then you factor in that he had a lousy life compared to Hendry, and came through it. Then you can add on that he plays both handed, is the most naturally gifted player, and nearly all professionals now regard him as the greatest. It isn't just what he does, it's how he does it. Hendry could not have made that break (was it 92?) against Carter if his life depended on it. And he couldn't have made a 5 min 20 sec 147 if his life depended on it either. Ronnie's best is the best that has ever been seen.
Lastly, Hendry was finished at 27. Ronnie is now World Champion at 38.
Factor all of this in and where does that leave the pro-Hendry argument? Dead in the water. Like it has always been.
---------------------
Vodkadiet, your analogy to actors is ridiculous. Acting has a ton of variables, including how good the director is, how good the screenplay is, how good the story is. Although to some degree you can see how good one actor is to another, there are no absolutes like there are in sport. Basic hard facts and a steady, standard, even playing field. The reason we can better judge different players in snooker, is because all the conditions remain relatively the same. That is an absolutely must in any real investigation. There has to be a control. Your analogy is just a transparent attempt at muddying the water, because you cannot abide Ronnie. Frankly, what you have said about Ronnie means no one can take you seriously ever again.
-----------------------
Being the greatest is more than stats and titles and accolades (although those do come into the argument AS A WHOLE). It is about talent, and artistry, and genius. Things you can see, but find difficult to understand. Things you know to be extraordinary and special. It isn't "opinion", it is something you can see unless you are as blind as a bat (and they aren't blind, they just use ultrasound to see. May as well note that while I am correcting people).
Dan
Last edited by
edwards2000 on 05 Mar 2014, edited 2 times in total.