Scaramouche said:
Scaramouche said:
1pRoscoe said:I highly applaud Hendry for his remarks during his interview. He is a true class act.
As a true competitor, who the heck wants to win any title, be it bar room, state, or World Championship, by default, when your opponent quits?
People want to beat the best, and come out on top, not have it conceded to them.
1pRoscoe said:I highly applaud Hendry for his remarks during his interview. He is a true class act.
MacGyver said:He was down 4-1, and he knows how well Hendry was playing.
If he knew he just didn't have it that day, then what is the point in playing the other 5 games if he knew on that day he would lose?
If he is payed a salary then I can understand the "paying fans" angle, but if this was a tournament based on tournament winnings, and there is nothing about conceding early, then I dont see anything wrong with this.
What is everyone whining about, why does conceding a match when you know you can't win bad for snooker at all?
I seems amusing so many people are getting apparently upset over this... all he did was concede, what is the big deal????
SlickRick_PCS said:There comes a time when you realize that when a game of billiards is not that much interesting anymore for either personal and professional reasons. Personal by means that Ronnie has his father whom is in jail, a snooker player whom has recently passed away, and so many other things in his life (I am certainly not in his head, per se, but you get the idea). I mean, he's human! Under professional status, there will be a contender who will surpass Ronnie... there is just no doubt about it! There is practically a reason on why he is not interested in snooker. I would just imagine trying to perfect on snooker but realizing that there is another sport (pocket billiards) that he finds interesting. In that matter as well, sponsorships are not looting in the pounds (as in money) as it once was back then. As we all know about Allison Fisher's invasion from the UK, I believe that Ronnie O'Sullivan is perhaps considering getting into pool either here or in Europe. Now I am no mind reader or psychic, but I can pretty much assure you all that it comes down to time when one enjoys playing a form of billiards and doing it so diligently that it doesn't find the interest in it and converts into something different. Just my little 2 cents..
chilli66 said:Absolutely. It's good to see there is no more animosity between these 2 great players.
sjm said:O'Sullivan's behavior was highly unprofessional, and, ultimately, a disgrace to his sport. Every single one of his fellow competitors realized this, but opted not to go on the record bashing Ronnie. Some may feel that this is admirable, but I do not.
Through his behavior, O'Sullivan has robbed one of the premier snooker events of its authenticity and dignity, simultaneously dragging down his sport's image. It would be far better for snooker if Hendry had taken demonstrative exception to O'Sullivan's behavior, thereby defending snooker's dignity and its unswerving commitment to its customers.
Of course, this is the AZB forum, so many will argue that O'Sullivan's tantrums draw the crowds and make snooker more colorful. After all, this point is offered every single time that Earl Strickland drag pool's dignity down. I, on the other hand, will say that anybody who shows so little repsect for their chosen profession (snooker, in this case) and its customers (the paying fans, in this case) should consider a different line of work.
An honest and sincere effort is the minimum we expect of sportsmen that we pay to see. On that rare occasion that we get less (such as when Roberto Duran quit against Sugar Ray Leonard), most of us are shocked and we label the perpetrator a quitter that has defamed his sport. Why should we settle for any less of O'Sullivan, whose excuse for quitting was that "he was just having a bad day at the office."
sjm said:O'Sullivan's behavior was highly unprofessional, and, ultimately, a disgrace to his sport. Every single one of his fellow competitors realized this, but opted not to go on the record bashing Ronnie. Some may feel that this is admirable, but I do not.
Through his behavior, O'Sullivan has robbed one of the premier snooker events of its authenticity and dignity, simultaneously dragging down his sport's image. It would be far better for snooker if Hendry had taken demonstrative exception to O'Sullivan's behavior, thereby defending snooker's dignity and its unswerving commitment to its customers.
Of course, this is the AZB forum, so many will argue that O'Sullivan's tantrums draw the crowds and make snooker more colorful. After all, this point is offered every single time that Earl Strickland drag pool's dignity down. I, on the other hand, will say that anybody who shows so little repsect for their chosen profession (snooker, in this case) and its customers (the paying fans, in this case) should consider a different line of work.
An honest and sincere effort is the minimum we expect of sportsmen that we pay to see. On that rare occasion that we get less (such as when Roberto Duran quit against Sugar Ray Leonard), most of us are shocked and we label the perpetrator a quitter that has defamed his sport. Why should we settle for any less of O'Sullivan, whose excuse for quitting was that "he was just having a bad day at the office."