I know they were all top five players, but Gary Wilkinson was around for about a year or two then disappeared. I'd hardly say someone someone like him belongs in this company.
As for your original list I don't think John Higgins merits a number two spot either. I'd put Ronnie and Mark Williams ahead of him.
Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree, Faxy. My list reflects players who have played the game to the highest standards. That's why there's no Reardon, Spencer, Fred or Joe cos they wouldn't be good enough to play on todays tour. And yes, Wilkinson should be nowhere near top 10, but he did show world-beater promise, albeit for 1 season, before sliding down the rankings. That's where my line about not producing it consistently comes in. (He still plays today btw)
John Higgins' best is better than Ronnie O'Sullivans best. Fact.
Dont think that's a fact. Imo Ronnie's best is better, not by much though.
You're probably right, Katiya. You sound like you know your snooker, and most experts would disagree with me too. I'm maybe biased because Higgins is my favourite player, and because I detest O'Sullivan for the same reasons your very self pointed out in another thread. But his 8 frame burst from 4-4 to 12-4 against O'Sullivan at the Crucible in 98 (I think) was a performance of frightening proportions, as was his 4 centuries against him in last seasons Grand Prix. I've never seen O'Sullivan produce anything as clinical.
But his 8 frame burst from 4-4 to 12-4 against O'Sullivan at the Crucible in 98 (I think) was a performance of frightening proportions, as was his 4 centuries against him in last seasons Grand Prix. I've never seen O'Sullivan produce anything as clinical.
Look at O'Sullivan's peformances in the Masters finals of 2005 & 2007 when he beat Higgins and Junhui 10-3, I've never seen better performances than those.
But you've agreed with me re Wilkinson and now you are agreeing with Katiya on O'Sullivan
Yawn. I only partially agreed with Katiya, plus offered evidence as to why I think Higgins is better than O'Sullivan.
You, however have agreed with me all along despite your attempts to suck me into a row. You stated that 4 players I mentioned weren't even top 10 in their day; then when I point out they were all top 5, you state your awareness of this fact. :yawn:
For the last time, Wilkinson is not deserving of a place in my top 10. If he'd kept up his form of the early 90's he would have been.
Yawn. I only partially agreed with Katiya, plus offered evidence as to why I think Higgins is better than O'Sullivan.
This "evidence" is based on two sessions of snooker. Ronnie would win in my opinion when comparing the two careers, and if you've never seen anything as clinical from Ronnie as those two sessions, look at his Masters victories, two world titles, crushing Graeme Dott in one and for that matter beating Higgins in another. I'm not a Ronnie fan, just think he comes out is the better of the two, why's that a problem?
You stated that 4 players I mentioned weren't even top 10 in their day; then when I point out they were all top 5, you state your awareness of this fact. :yawn:
Complete nonsense. Right from your original post I said they were hardly top 10 players in their day. That doesn't mean I didn't know they all reached the top five, I'm just saying were only there for a short period. That is little merit other than them being part of a debate to discuss anything other than the worlds top 100 snooker players of all time, not the top 10.
For the last time, Wilkinson is not deserving of a place in my top 10. If he'd kept up his form of the early 90's he would have been.
But alas, he didn't. Its a bit like saying if Stuart Bingham had kicked on after he'd beaten Hendry, or if Andy Hicks had moved to bigger things after his World semi, ifs and buts. Seems like someone only has to get a century break by your criteria and they'll be somewhere in your deliberation.
But you've agreed with me re Wilkinson and now you are agreeing with Katiya on O'Sullivan
There's very little in it, I've seen Ronnie do things Higgins couldnt and also seen Higgins do things Ronnie couldnt but if both players were to perform at their peak for a whole season then I think Ronnie would win more but only just.
If it wasnt for Higgins being a family man and being devoted to his kids then I dont think there's any doubt he'd have been a multiple world champ and one of the all time greats.
IF however there was a snooker hall of fame I'd have John in it a long time before Ronnie ever made an appearance.
But alas, he didn't. Its a bit like saying if Stuart Bingham had kicked on after he'd beaten Hendry, or if Andy Hicks had moved to bigger things after his World semi, ifs and buts. Seems like someone only has to get a century break by your criteria and they'll be somewhere in your deliberation.
Oh and I forgot....Dene O'Kane should be up there for his fantastic (almost) black ball win in a single frame decider of the World Cup against Davis. Legendary. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
to be honest, I think snooker standards peaked around the late 90's. that's not to say that standards aren't really high now, but I don't think we'll again see a collective level of talent such as Hendry, O'Sullivan, Higgins, and Williams all relatively near their primes. I also agree with ash that, had Ronnie won more, I'd have him in at #1. but I really can't see how anyone can have him lower than #3, the guy is really just an incredible talent. I say this as the world's biggest Stephen Hendry fan
:cool: Must be Billy Snaddon? Not that he's the worst....(finalist in the China Open if I remember right!)....but you must have practised with him?
Yes it was Snaddon. I've been in his company a few times but that was the only time i've ever played him. 3-1 I won and it was in a tournament as well. He was on TV quite a lot at the time I played him although I dont think any of us made a break over 30 or 40.
I had to laugh at the mention of some of those old donkeys I used to watch like Dene O’ Kane with his white glove, Danny ‘The binman’ Fowler and Stephen Lee’s dad Les Dodd.......
But what about the worst player ever to win a ranking event?
I’d go for Canadian Bob Chaperon, winner of the 1985 British Open, beating Alex Higgins in the final, if memory serves........
I also think that was the first ranking event where they drew each round out of a hat rather than on seeding.......
I had to laugh at the mention of some of those old donkeys I used to watch like Dene O’ Kane with his white glove, Danny ‘The binman’ Fowler and Stephen Lee’s dad Les Dodd.......
But what about the worst player ever to win a ranking event?
I’d go for Canadian Bob Chaperon, winner of the 1985 British Open, beating Alex Higgins in the final, if memory serves........
Chaperon won the 1990 British Open, Silvino Francisco won it in 1985, beating Kirk Stevens in the final, which I think was the first year it was played.
Chaperon won the 1990 British Open, Silvino Francisco won it in 1985, beating Kirk Stevens in the final, which I think was the first year it was played.
Blimey, it seems I was 5 years out.......... :eek:
Yes it was Snaddon. I've been in his company a few times but that was the only time i've ever played him. 3-1 I won and it was in a tournament as well. He was on TV quite a lot at the time I played him although I dont think any of us made a break over 30 or 40.
Katiya, did you ever turn pro? Just reading between the lines, you know Graeme Dott, you've played Snaddon, and generally display a good knowledge of the game. I know there were a bunch of good Scottish amateurs who turned pro in the early 90's, were you one of them? The likes of Drew Henry, Chris Small, Marcus Campbell, Jamie Burnett, Snaddon, Dott, a certain John Higgins plus Crucible qualifiers David McLellan & Graham Horne all launched their careers around this time. Maybe you're one of the ones I mentioned?
Worst player ever to win a ranking event? I'd prefer to use the word "unlikely" rather than worst......Chaperon is up there for sure. Tony Jones? Tony Meo long after he'd past his best? Mike Hallett? Dave Harold?
Worst player ever to win a ranking event? I'd prefer to use the word "unlikely" rather than worst......Chaperon is up there for sure. Tony Jones? Tony Meo long after he'd past his best? Mike Hallett? Dave Harold?
Blimey....Tony Jones.......I'd forgotten all about him.......all I can remember is his middle parting.............
Talking about the difficulties of comparing the old guard to the modern players, I can remember when I used to collect Snooker Scene in the eighties, John Spencer lost a match, probably around 1987 to Jimmy White, and the interviewer put it to him that he might have beaten White in his prime.....
Spencer honestly replied that he was playing the best snooker of his career and that the bar had just been raised so much higher than when he'd won his world championships that he now couldn't quite compete at the very highest level, which illustrates what I think most of us suspect that a lot of the old champions wouldn't have quite cut the mustard against the young guns.......
It's just unquantifiable though isn't it because without the likes of Spencer and the Davis brothers in the first place Jimmy White, Steve Davis and Stephen Hendry probably wouldn't have moved the game on to a higher level.
It's like saying would Bjorn Borg beat Roger Federer at Wimbledon guys serve on a completely different level now compared to then as well as using fancy metal rackets not wooden ones but without the games trailblazers then the standards would not be where they are today.
It's a great never ending subject to chew the fat on though because there is no nor ever will be a definitive answer.
Ali or Tyson
Pele or Maradonna
Taylor or Bristow
Nicklaus or Woods
Comments
Euan Henderson
Joe O'Boye
David Taylor
Danny Fowler
Les Dodd
Billy Snaddon
Eugene Hughes
Noppadon Noppachorn
Jim Wych
Willie Thorne.
Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree, Faxy. My list reflects players who have played the game to the highest standards. That's why there's no Reardon, Spencer, Fred or Joe cos they wouldn't be good enough to play on todays tour. And yes, Wilkinson should be nowhere near top 10, but he did show world-beater promise, albeit for 1 season, before sliding down the rankings. That's where my line about not producing it consistently comes in. (He still plays today btw)
John Higgins' best is better than Ronnie O'Sullivans best. Fact.
Tungsten....you forgot Patsy Fagan.
Dont think that's a fact. Imo Ronnie's best is better, not by much though.
You're probably right, Katiya. You sound like you know your snooker, and most experts would disagree with me too. I'm maybe biased because Higgins is my favourite player, and because I detest O'Sullivan for the same reasons your very self pointed out in another thread. But his 8 frame burst from 4-4 to 12-4 against O'Sullivan at the Crucible in 98 (I think) was a performance of frightening proportions, as was his 4 centuries against him in last seasons Grand Prix. I've never seen O'Sullivan produce anything as clinical.
But you've agreed with me re Wilkinson and now you are agreeing with Katiya on O'Sullivan
Look at O'Sullivan's peformances in the Masters finals of 2005 & 2007 when he beat Higgins and Junhui 10-3, I've never seen better performances than those.
Yawn. I only partially agreed with Katiya, plus offered evidence as to why I think Higgins is better than O'Sullivan.
You, however have agreed with me all along despite your attempts to suck me into a row. You stated that 4 players I mentioned weren't even top 10 in their day; then when I point out they were all top 5, you state your awareness of this fact. :yawn:
For the last time, Wilkinson is not deserving of a place in my top 10. If he'd kept up his form of the early 90's he would have been.
This "evidence" is based on two sessions of snooker. Ronnie would win in my opinion when comparing the two careers, and if you've never seen anything as clinical from Ronnie as those two sessions, look at his Masters victories, two world titles, crushing Graeme Dott in one and for that matter beating Higgins in another. I'm not a Ronnie fan, just think he comes out is the better of the two, why's that a problem?
Complete nonsense. Right from your original post I said they were hardly top 10 players in their day. That doesn't mean I didn't know they all reached the top five, I'm just saying were only there for a short period. That is little merit other than them being part of a debate to discuss anything other than the worlds top 100 snooker players of all time, not the top 10.
But alas, he didn't. Its a bit like saying if Stuart Bingham had kicked on after he'd beaten Hendry, or if Andy Hicks had moved to bigger things after his World semi, ifs and buts. Seems like someone only has to get a century break by your criteria and they'll be somewhere in your deliberation.
There's very little in it, I've seen Ronnie do things Higgins couldnt and also seen Higgins do things Ronnie couldnt but if both players were to perform at their peak for a whole season then I think Ronnie would win more but only just.
If it wasnt for Higgins being a family man and being devoted to his kids then I dont think there's any doubt he'd have been a multiple world champ and one of the all time greats.
IF however there was a snooker hall of fame I'd have John in it a long time before Ronnie ever made an appearance.
Oh and I forgot....Dene O'Kane should be up there for his fantastic (almost) black ball win in a single frame decider of the World Cup against Davis. Legendary. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Fair point Flower. Better add me and Katiya to the list.
I have even beat someone from Tungsten's top 10 greats list.
I also had 2 centuries in the same practise match this week, I think that puts me roughly number 4 in the list.
:cool: Must be Billy Snaddon? Not that he's the worst....(finalist in the China Open if I remember right!)....but you must have practised with him?
Yes it was Snaddon. I've been in his company a few times but that was the only time i've ever played him. 3-1 I won and it was in a tournament as well.
But what about the worst player ever to win a ranking event?
I’d go for Canadian Bob Chaperon, winner of the 1985 British Open, beating Alex Higgins in the final, if memory serves........
I also think that was the first ranking event where they drew each round out of a hat rather than on seeding.......
Chaperon won the 1990 British Open, Silvino Francisco won it in 1985, beating Kirk Stevens in the final, which I think was the first year it was played.
Blimey, it seems I was 5 years out.......... :eek:
He was still crap though..........
Katiya, did you ever turn pro? Just reading between the lines, you know Graeme Dott, you've played Snaddon, and generally display a good knowledge of the game. I know there were a bunch of good Scottish amateurs who turned pro in the early 90's, were you one of them? The likes of Drew Henry, Chris Small, Marcus Campbell, Jamie Burnett, Snaddon, Dott, a certain John Higgins plus Crucible qualifiers David McLellan & Graham Horne all launched their careers around this time. Maybe you're one of the ones I mentioned?
Worst player ever to win a ranking event? I'd prefer to use the word "unlikely" rather than worst......Chaperon is up there for sure. Tony Jones? Tony Meo long after he'd past his best? Mike Hallett? Dave Harold?
I think he lost in both of the finals he reached...once to Hendry in the Welsh.....can't remember the other.
http://www.globalsnookercentre.co.uk/files/player.htm
Blimey....Tony Jones.......I'd forgotten all about him.......all I can remember is his middle parting.............
Talking about the difficulties of comparing the old guard to the modern players, I can remember when I used to collect Snooker Scene in the eighties, John Spencer lost a match, probably around 1987 to Jimmy White, and the interviewer put it to him that he might have beaten White in his prime.....
Spencer honestly replied that he was playing the best snooker of his career and that the bar had just been raised so much higher than when he'd won his world championships that he now couldn't quite compete at the very highest level, which illustrates what I think most of us suspect that a lot of the old champions wouldn't have quite cut the mustard against the young guns.......
It's like saying would Bjorn Borg beat Roger Federer at Wimbledon guys serve on a completely different level now compared to then as well as using fancy metal rackets not wooden ones but without the games trailblazers then the standards would not be where they are today.
It's a great never ending subject to chew the fat on though because there is no nor ever will be a definitive answer.
Ali or Tyson
Pele or Maradonna
Taylor or Bristow
Nicklaus or Woods
There's hundreds of them!