doesnt count, some of those tournaments had 2 entrants

I guess so but still being out of competitive games for a year has to have some effect, no?

This.

Sure Steve Davis defending it. Ray Reardon would have done so as well.

Yeah but it looks funny on the wiki page. Seems that it was more akin to how the chess crown or a boxing belt is defended then real tournaments.

Joe beat his brother Fred 37-36 in 1940. That's a lot of frames.

No one placed their life savings on Ronnie to win? I'm disappointed

had already lost my life savings betting on boomjaeng to win outright

I just downloaded the book by Dr Steve Peters who was in the crowd. Looks quite good at the moment, I'm sure I could implement a ton of this into my poker game.

There were championship matches that went beyond 100 frames IIRC. This one is not even close to being the longest.

Moreover, not only are Joe Davis's achievements not all that great considering how few poker pros there were in his day but the great Steve Davis of the 1980s (6 wins) could not live with these guys today.

Ronnie's 5 wins are worth more than anyone's before the 1990s. For me, the modern era starts with Stephen Hendry.

Just my 2c worth.

Peace.

Become world champ, take a year off, come back and retain title with ease.

BOSS.

And yea statistically hendry might be better, but there's no one more talented than ronnie, he's the one person i desperately wanna see play live before he actually "retires".

I agree. I was just trying to be cu(e)te and all.

I can't see anyone else matching this.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpeBugHSCnU

Snooker generally requires a lot of practice so to come into a tournament after a year without any and then win it comfortably is pretty unheard of.

Did anyone catch that segment the BBC done on snooker players being 'burnt out?'

Seemed like complete uncompassionate bs. It basically said if a snooker player is feeling burnt out at the end of the year, they are a loser and should go back to a 9-5 gulag.

Anyone who has to win to make a living is prone to being burnt out. The BBC obviously have no clue about this because they survive off tax money and it is very evident in this piece. They then interview some of the most successful players and have them rattle off this bull****, they may believe it but to me it came across as they were saying it for PR reasons. This made them come across like politicians. They didn't interview any of those struggling to stay on the tour.

+1

Stephen Hendry was claiming that "burnout" was bs as well yet when he retired he cited all this having to go to tournament after tournament if he fell out of the top 16.

I could write more on this but I am feeling so ....

Like most people ... im a big fan of O'Sullivan, but i do agree with what he said about Hendry.

I dont think there is any doubt that Hendry is the best player thats played this game.

As much as everyone admires O'Sullivan for a variety of things he can do on a snooker table .... Hendry in his prime was simply staggering.

hendrys complaint wasn't burnout related, it was that when he started having to qualify he'd forever be up against noobs for whom a match vs hendry was their career highlight. he said sometimes the only people in the crowd for those matches were the extended family of his opponent.

it was the transition from being practically odds on fave to win everything to having to play in front of no one in cubicles which he found tough, rather than the amnt of snooker he had to play. and i can understand it. like going from premier league superstar to 2nd division plodder.

Yeah but Hendry's one of the most successful players of all time. He's going to be far less burned out than a guy struggling to stay afloat on the snooker pro circuit, playing every tournament he can and coaching people on the side in order to scrape together a living.

I just found the whole piece a little insensitive and ironic coming from the BBC that doesn't even know the meaning of competition. Life is tough on most people, even Ronnie finds the pressure difficult. The BBC making up some politically correct non-story as a pr stunt for people who are renowned to be decent people. In my eye's the piece seemed pointless and contrived.

Football players don't need to make **** up about them being normal guys. many of them are completely psychotic, chewing on their opponents arms. The whole piece just got my back up because it seemed to exude some extremely old fashioned ways of looking at the pressures of professional sport. All the while they sat back in their plush jobs paid for with tax revenue, smirking at the hardships of those who are struggling and dismissing them as bitches.

According to this:

Stephen Hendry's net worth is 11 million £. So no financial need to travel around the world to face noobs in cubicles either.

Hendry's powers clearly declined. He was not odds on favorite to win anything at the point he retired otherwise he would have kept on playing and winning. He had not won a ranking event since 2005.

And what would all the extra qualifying matches have led to:

Ronnie what a legend!

Who's Ronnie?

can pretty much guarantee that hendry was playing more frames of competitive snooker when he was getting to ~every final of ~every tournament than when he started to get KOed in the 2nd round. burnout isn't it.

just a player

HE is just awesum when he wants to be (ronnie) but he is not fully committed which is a damm shame

Thread has 147 replies almost didn't wanna post.



lol @ the shots at 1:25 and 1:45, how do you do that.

LOL Betfair were hovering around 2nd to 5th best price + 5% commission on top of being 5th best price + bad(ish) liquidity pre live + no money back offers. Perhaps more ironically, Betfair are currently the only reputable gambling firm to retrospectively fine large scale winners - all the other just slowly limit you after each bet.

5* to the Betfair marketing machine though...