If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I think a sportsman can be a genius. But if then its because of his creativity and his mind, to which the term genius usually refers. And I'm not sure if O'Sullivan fits this description.
I think a sportsman can be a genius. But if then its because of his creativity and his mind, to which the term genius usually refers. And I'm not sure if O'Sullivan fits this description.
I would say a genius usually can be seen as elevating their chosen field - Leonardo did it with painting, Mozart with music, I would argue O'Sullivan has done it with snooker. The argument against is always "He's not a genius, he just worked ridiculously hard at it" as if Leonardo knocked off the Last Supper without having lifted a brush before.
Ronnie is 100 percent a genius. He sees and executes the game much differently than everyone else and when hes at his best, hes elevated it to a height far beyond anyone else. I mean 98% pot success by the end of a final? If that isnt genius to you guys then you must have incredible standards lol. Of-course he isnt an intellectual or artistic genius, but hes certainly a virtuoso snooker genius on the table.
I'd think this argument would fit more to Stephen Hendry then though, if you look at how he changed the way of how Snooker is played.
Though obviously there can be room for more than one genius in a sport.
I was born in 1981 so Hendry and O'Sullivan are really all I've ever known, but did Hendry really change the game so much or was he merely the first player to take advantage of improved conditions etc? That's not a rhetorical question - I'd be happy to learn, as the only thing that gets mentioned is the blue into the pack.
I was born in 1981 so Hendry and O'Sullivan are really all I've ever known, but did Hendry really change the game so much or was he merely the first player to take advantage of improved conditions etc? That's not a rhetorical question - I'd be happy to learn, as the only thing that gets mentioned is the blue into the pack.
I'm even younger than you, but from what I've heard (and seen in videos) he just changed the whole attitude of the game in making it a more aggressive and offensive one, also going far more often for pots into the middle pockets to keep breaks alive and of course having that great long potting ability. In my understanding Hendry took break-building and it's importance to a full new level.
then you are not watching the snooker - bingham is one of the few who have turned him over at his best on multiple occasions, notably on his way to winning the 2015 world title.
And what has Bingham done since that 2015 WC title? I'll give you a clue, the first word is 'Jack'.
"Kryten, isn't it round about this time of year that your head goes back to the lab for retuning?"
I'm even younger than you, but from what I've heard (and seen in videos) he just changed the whole attitude of the game in making it a more aggressive and offensive one, also going far more often for pots into the middle pockets to keep breaks alive and of course having that great long potting ability. In my understanding Hendry took break-building and it's importance to a full new level.
Being a Canadian, I'm going to use a Hockey reference. I've always seen Stephen Hendry as kind of a Wayne Gretzky type figure, someone who changed the approach to the game which everyone followed. No matter how many centuries anybody else makes or how many world titles anyone else wins, Hendry will always have that distinction of developing the modern game.
Well not really, I mean I don't suppose Chris Wakelin considers himself on a par with the Ronster either but he's beaten him, so O'Sullivan has proven he's not above losing to the odd nobody in the past
Comment