Which one is the best of the best?
Who is the best snooker player in modern era
- Thread starter Calgaryplayer
- Start date
levka
Registered
Modern era is divided in to decades.
80s - Davis
90s - Hendry
'00s - O'Sullivan
Currently there is a new breed of players who are fearless and have very aggressive playing style, which i like to be honest. Like mark Allen, Neil Roberson, Ding Junhui and others.
In the end I'd pick Hendry. O'sullivan is the most natural snooker player ever, but he is very impatient and usually is the reason for his own downfalls (much like Alex Higgins). Steve Davis is close 2nd. They both worked extremely hard on their games, but in the end statistics is what counts. No one even comes close to Hendry in century breaks, 7 world titles also speak for themselves.
Lev
80s - Davis
90s - Hendry
'00s - O'Sullivan
Currently there is a new breed of players who are fearless and have very aggressive playing style, which i like to be honest. Like mark Allen, Neil Roberson, Ding Junhui and others.
In the end I'd pick Hendry. O'sullivan is the most natural snooker player ever, but he is very impatient and usually is the reason for his own downfalls (much like Alex Higgins). Steve Davis is close 2nd. They both worked extremely hard on their games, but in the end statistics is what counts. No one even comes close to Hendry in century breaks, 7 world titles also speak for themselves.
Lev
Last edited:
I don't think it is cut and dry as all that. The equipment they are playing on nowadays allows for a more attacking game. Try going into the pack on slower cloth and then again on fast cloth you'll see the difference. I know of a very good player who still considers Joe Davis the greatest ever because he was managing a dominating standard on far more difficult equipment.
That said, overall the players are far better now than ever. I don't think you can dispute that at all. Ronnie O'Sullivan is dealing with far superior competion than Steve Davis or Stephen Hendry were during their hey day. If Ronnie ever manages 6 or 7 world titles I think they would be worth more than Davis or Hendry's. It's just not possible to dominate in the same way anymore when more than half of the top 16 has made over 100 centuries in competition.
I would most certainly place Steve Davis and Stephen Hendry ahead of Ronnie. Steve is a superior match player and both have an excellent temperment. You wont see either give up either mentally or literally. For that reason, they will get through more difficult situations and win where Ronnie wouldn't.
Statistics don't tell the whole story. You can compare Ronnie to John Higgins as they've played their careers against the same people, but you can't compare Ronnie to Steve or even Steve to Stephen. Again they all played their primes against different players, and in some cases different equipment.
But to be fair, Steve Davis still holds the record for most professional tournament wins. Also he may have fewer ranking wins than Hendry, but there were also fewer ranking events available to him through a portion of his career, in fact there are bunch of tournaments he won before they recieved ranking status. He may have on less world title than Hendry but he does have one more UK title.
I think Steve had the more all around game, but if I was forced to choose I'd give the nod to Stephen Hendry. My reasoning is that Steve Davis perfected the style of snooker that was being played at the time, but Stephen Hendry took it another step further and revolutionized the game. I remember reading that Steve Davis slowly suffocated his opponents, whereas Stephen Hendry blugeoned them to death.
If Ronnie were ever to get his head together and play with consistency then I would be willing to give the nod to him. From 2007-2009 I thought he was the best I ever saw, but then he hasn't been playing that well since. Comparatively any ways. You have to maintain that standard for more than a couple of years.
That said, overall the players are far better now than ever. I don't think you can dispute that at all. Ronnie O'Sullivan is dealing with far superior competion than Steve Davis or Stephen Hendry were during their hey day. If Ronnie ever manages 6 or 7 world titles I think they would be worth more than Davis or Hendry's. It's just not possible to dominate in the same way anymore when more than half of the top 16 has made over 100 centuries in competition.
I would most certainly place Steve Davis and Stephen Hendry ahead of Ronnie. Steve is a superior match player and both have an excellent temperment. You wont see either give up either mentally or literally. For that reason, they will get through more difficult situations and win where Ronnie wouldn't.
Statistics don't tell the whole story. You can compare Ronnie to John Higgins as they've played their careers against the same people, but you can't compare Ronnie to Steve or even Steve to Stephen. Again they all played their primes against different players, and in some cases different equipment.
But to be fair, Steve Davis still holds the record for most professional tournament wins. Also he may have fewer ranking wins than Hendry, but there were also fewer ranking events available to him through a portion of his career, in fact there are bunch of tournaments he won before they recieved ranking status. He may have on less world title than Hendry but he does have one more UK title.
I think Steve had the more all around game, but if I was forced to choose I'd give the nod to Stephen Hendry. My reasoning is that Steve Davis perfected the style of snooker that was being played at the time, but Stephen Hendry took it another step further and revolutionized the game. I remember reading that Steve Davis slowly suffocated his opponents, whereas Stephen Hendry blugeoned them to death.
If Ronnie were ever to get his head together and play with consistency then I would be willing to give the nod to him. From 2007-2009 I thought he was the best I ever saw, but then he hasn't been playing that well since. Comparatively any ways. You have to maintain that standard for more than a couple of years.
I like a lot of what Cameron said above.
I always have and probably always will give Stephen Hendry my vote simply because I think regardless of when he lived, his game would have been superior. Ronnie O'Sullivan has the same game as Stephen Hendry--very attacking and accurate, which is a devastating combination.
I loved the Steve Davis/Stephen Hendry comparison about Steve's game suffocating, while Stephen's bludgeons because it is perfectly true.
I don't want to sound like a fence-sitter but I think it's hard to say either Stephen and Ronnie are better than the other. I think they have each contributed simply brilliant performances to the game and each will go down in record books for their accomplishments. I also think that on their best days with their best games, the result would be a coin toss. It would be a matter of who got in first.
I think nowadays Ronnie's game is so admired and appreciated because it is so flashy and appeals to a wide audience. Stephen went about his business as a silent and deadly killer and most people that weren't real snooker enthusiasts found this boring. Ronnie moves about the balls very quickly and Stephen takes his time and dissects the table. However, if he had the flash of Ronnie's game he'd have been on the top of more lists.
Ronnie looked perfect from 2007-2009 and Stephen looked perfect almost all of the 90's but particulary 93-96.
Anyway, if I have to pick one, I will say Stephen Hendry. Single performances, achievements, records, temperament and skill all contribute to this.
I always have and probably always will give Stephen Hendry my vote simply because I think regardless of when he lived, his game would have been superior. Ronnie O'Sullivan has the same game as Stephen Hendry--very attacking and accurate, which is a devastating combination.
I loved the Steve Davis/Stephen Hendry comparison about Steve's game suffocating, while Stephen's bludgeons because it is perfectly true.
I don't want to sound like a fence-sitter but I think it's hard to say either Stephen and Ronnie are better than the other. I think they have each contributed simply brilliant performances to the game and each will go down in record books for their accomplishments. I also think that on their best days with their best games, the result would be a coin toss. It would be a matter of who got in first.
I think nowadays Ronnie's game is so admired and appreciated because it is so flashy and appeals to a wide audience. Stephen went about his business as a silent and deadly killer and most people that weren't real snooker enthusiasts found this boring. Ronnie moves about the balls very quickly and Stephen takes his time and dissects the table. However, if he had the flash of Ronnie's game he'd have been on the top of more lists.
Ronnie looked perfect from 2007-2009 and Stephen looked perfect almost all of the 90's but particulary 93-96.
Anyway, if I have to pick one, I will say Stephen Hendry. Single performances, achievements, records, temperament and skill all contribute to this.
Hendry has more world titles but, as pointed out earlier in this thread, Davis has an arguably better record. For me Davis is #1 for three reasons - best player in his era, one of the best records, and last but not least a great winner and a great loser. Hendry took a long time to become even a half decent loser. O'Sullivan is the most talented (and actually loses very well after he beats himself up) but he needs to cement his legacy with the goods to be considered up there with Davis in my book.
Hendry, davies, ebdon, they are like robots.
I stopped watching and playing snooker it was so boring.
when tony drago, alex hurricane higgins, and jimmy white played it was exciting to watch.
Snooker is in trouble at the moment and the players only have them selves to blame.
John Higgins is under investigation for match fixing, and has been suspended from snooker untill the outcome.
Barry Hearn has the task now of trying to save a dying game.
Will he pull it off ?
I play pool now, its a much better game.
I stopped watching and playing snooker it was so boring.
when tony drago, alex hurricane higgins, and jimmy white played it was exciting to watch.
Snooker is in trouble at the moment and the players only have them selves to blame.
John Higgins is under investigation for match fixing, and has been suspended from snooker untill the outcome.
Barry Hearn has the task now of trying to save a dying game.
Will he pull it off ?
I play pool now, its a much better game.
Rocket Ronnie and his "mistress".
I think it's very difficult unless you break down the era's and look at their records and how the game was structured at that time. For instance Joe Davis had an outstanding record, but he only played who he wanted too for much of the time. In the real modern era I would say there are two outstanding players Steve Davis & Stephen Hendry.
Their careers did overlap but not at the height of their powers, I would find it difficult to pick between the two unless really pressed and I guess I would pick Steve Davis. He simply dominated the game and other players like nobody I have ever seen. He was the bookies overwhelming favorite every time he entered a tournament, he took Snooker to a new level and was a complete Gentleman and played some good Pool too. Hendry took it a step further but I don't think (even with more World Titles) he dominated like Davis. After the demise of Hendry the game has become stagnant and with the exception of O'Sullivan and the untimely death of Paul Hunter (who was the nicest guy you'd ever meet) devoid of characters. Unfortunately we will never see the likes of the 1980's again it was the golden age of snooker. Everywhere you looked there were great players with some real characters. Alex Higgins who was a truly troubled genius, especially when he was drinking. Jimmy White an absolute magician he could make the cue ball do anything he wanted, but just couldn't take the World Title. Bill Werbeniuk who'd drink more beers before and during a match tahn any 4 of us could in a whole night! There were many others too, but it was such an incerible time, that even Soccer had to take a backseat to Snooker. I saw a quote from Terry Griffiths a while ago that he simply didn't apprecaite what was going on at the time. He may not have but we certainly did.
Their careers did overlap but not at the height of their powers, I would find it difficult to pick between the two unless really pressed and I guess I would pick Steve Davis. He simply dominated the game and other players like nobody I have ever seen. He was the bookies overwhelming favorite every time he entered a tournament, he took Snooker to a new level and was a complete Gentleman and played some good Pool too. Hendry took it a step further but I don't think (even with more World Titles) he dominated like Davis. After the demise of Hendry the game has become stagnant and with the exception of O'Sullivan and the untimely death of Paul Hunter (who was the nicest guy you'd ever meet) devoid of characters. Unfortunately we will never see the likes of the 1980's again it was the golden age of snooker. Everywhere you looked there were great players with some real characters. Alex Higgins who was a truly troubled genius, especially when he was drinking. Jimmy White an absolute magician he could make the cue ball do anything he wanted, but just couldn't take the World Title. Bill Werbeniuk who'd drink more beers before and during a match tahn any 4 of us could in a whole night! There were many others too, but it was such an incerible time, that even Soccer had to take a backseat to Snooker. I saw a quote from Terry Griffiths a while ago that he simply didn't apprecaite what was going on at the time. He may not have but we certainly did.
For my money, Cameron got it about right.
Davis edges it on safety; Hendry was an even better break builder. In their prime they were both great potters. But Hendry managed to dominate against better opposition and gets my vote.
IMHO O'Sullivan doesn't even get onto the podium until he gets his head unscrambled. But still the most enjoyable player to watch I have ever seen - absolutely breathtaking at times.
Davis edges it on safety; Hendry was an even better break builder. In their prime they were both great potters. But Hendry managed to dominate against better opposition and gets my vote.
IMHO O'Sullivan doesn't even get onto the podium until he gets his head unscrambled. But still the most enjoyable player to watch I have ever seen - absolutely breathtaking at times.
Absolutely agree with you about Ronnie, he's simply another tortured soul with so much ability it's hard to imagine how good he could be if his head had ever been straight. Unfortunately there is more chance of me getting to take a Whizz in the Queen's Purse than there is of Ronnie's head ever being straight!
One that a lot of people forget is Paul Hunter who sadly passed away in 2006 at only 27 years of age, that made me truly sad. I met him first when he was only a kid and he never changed, even with all his success. He was a wonderful person and a truly gifted Snooker player who simply loved to play the game. He will be forever missed by all the people who met Paul during his all too short life.
I understand they were trying to or maybe going to re-name the Masters after Paul which would be a fitting tribute.
One that a lot of people forget is Paul Hunter who sadly passed away in 2006 at only 27 years of age, that made me truly sad. I met him first when he was only a kid and he never changed, even with all his success. He was a wonderful person and a truly gifted Snooker player who simply loved to play the game. He will be forever missed by all the people who met Paul during his all too short life.
I understand they were trying to or maybe going to re-name the Masters after Paul which would be a fitting tribute.