vodkadiet wrote:It wouldn't have mattered would era a prime Hendry had played in, he would have battered them all.
Is that why he only managed to win just 1 major title after the age of 27 ?!
Which of these statements makes more sense to you ?
a. Hendry suddenly exited his prime aged 27. Mind you, that's very old.
b. Hendry simply came up against superior opposition and couldn't dominate anymore.
Get a grip man, you're starting to make a fool of yourself.
vodkadiet wrote:And secondly if O'Sullivan was the greatest it wouldn't matter what his opposition was. Federer wouldn't have been bothered what era he was playing in. He still would have dominated tennis.
Really ?! That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Yes, Federer might have dominated, but he wouldn't have won as much. Nadal and Djokovic are clearly superior to the likes of Mark Philippoussis, Marat Safin, Andy Roddick, Marcos Baghdatis, Fernando González, Lleyton Hewitt, etc.
And if Nadal wasn't around, Federer would have won the French Open a hell of a lot more than just once. In the same way John Higgins was in Ronnie's way of grabbing more titles.
Opposition fuckin' matters bud.
vodkadiet wrote:And it isn't as if O'Sullivan has been beaten by nothing but greats at The Crucible. He has lost to players that Hendry would have slaughtered in his prime.
The same can be said about Hendry. Need I remind you that Hendry lost in the first round in 2000 when he was the defending champion ?!
vodkadiet wrote: O'Sullivan's fans arguments have more holes in them than St. Andrew's golf course.
Nope, yours do.
In the last few posts, you have been schooled by Ash, Dan-Cat and Pinkey, all of whom are objective posters and have given you plenty of valid arguments. Yet you persist to ignore facts. At this moment in time, I'm starting to think you're just trolling.
You want arguments. I'll give you some you can't refute.
First of all, you have to understand that "greatness" has different meanings to different people. I know plenty of people who consider Alex Higgins the greatest cause of what he did for the game, his impact on the sport. And up to a certain extent, I think they have a valid viewpoint. Alex Higgins reached out to the masses and has drawn people to watch or take up the sport. He brought snooker from the shady pubs and murky background into the media spotlight. And he has given joy to many with the crazy shots he used to go for, and he made quite a few of them.
For you, greatness is defined by the numbers of world titles one has won. I won't dispute that, but even by your reasoning, you still have to factor in the opposition one's had to face in order to win those titles, otherwise your assessment is flawed. Heck, by your reasoning, Joe Davis will never be bettered.
No matter which you spin it, the early 90's did not have the highest standard. Just take a look at the the top players from that era, they don't stack up to those from 1997 to around 2007.
And by using your own words, the opposition shouldn't matter and Hendry should have dominated from 1997 to around 2007. Yet he didn't. There is no proof whatsoever that he suddenly exited his prime at the age of just 27. From 1997 to around 2008, Hendry was just as good, but his opposition wasn't, it had improved dramatically.
When Hendry began dominating in the early 90's, he only had to contend with the defense oriented old farts from the 80's and only a couple of good players who, on occasion, could score heavy like him: Jimmy (who was great, but lacked bottle), Davis, Parrott, and that's about it. The class of 92 were still too young and old farts like Taylor, Griffiths and Thorne could barely score 30 points. Even a complete bum like David Roe was a top 16 player.
From 1996 onwards, the class of 92 started to come of age. You also had other great players like Doherty, Hunter, Stevens and Ebdon. Hendry had not declined one bit, he simply couldn't dominate anymore. His true value can be seen in that time span.
From 1997 to 2008, Hendry won 1 world title, reached 2 other finals plus 2 semifinals (where Ronnie, who had by then become an all rounder (except the mental part), completely demolished him). He also lost a Masters final to Willo. And he won around 9 rankers. All in all, it was a decent record, but nothing jaw dropping either.
For most of us however, greatness is determined by a mix of factors, such as: peak form/ability, achievements - meaning titles and records (evaluated by taking into account the opposition one's had to face), longevity and last but not least, impact on the sport.
Ronnie O'Sullivan is the only player in the history of the sport that thicks all those boxes:
- he can play to higher standard than anyone else in the history of the game;
- he has won more majors than Hendry and will probably hold all records when he retires (the number of WC is the only one that he might not get), despite being up against superior opposition;
- he's been playing to the highest standard for over 25 years;
- he has the highest match win percentage of all time with 74.62% (I'm talking about top pros only);
- he has the highest frame win percentage of all time among the top players with 61.1%;
- he is the greatest break-builder of all time and will probably finish his career with over 1000 tons;
- he has the most 147's and the fastest one, a record that will probably never be beat;
- he's a joy to watch, an artist with a cue in his hand;
- he's one of the most loved snooker players of all time and has the largest fan-base, and he's also the reason many watch or have taken up snooker.
And he has done all of that despite the turmoils in his personal life. I've given you more than enough arguments.
At this moment in time, most of the snooker players and experts concur that he is the GOAT.
Higgo, Willo, Selbo, Allen, Robbo, Foulds, Ding, Bingo, Hawk, Jimmy, Trump, Smurf, Kyren, Perry, D. Hendon, - all agree he's the greatest.
And even the man who coined up the phrase that u love to use in all of your posts ("greatness outweighs opinion every time"), Clive Everton, starts his book on Ronnie with the following phrase: "Ronnie O'Sullivan is the finest player in snooker history".........THE END !!!
You have been defeated Mr. Vodka. Now go back to eating sea weed, or grass, or whatever weed u eat.