Davis 80's Vs Hendry 90's

[147 Club]

obviously hendry is regarded as the greatest ever because of his multiple tournament victories but just thinking whether steve davis in his prime could beat hendry in his. obviously hendry is far ahead in terms of breakbuilding skills but you have to remember that steve along with only john higgins possibly is the greatest tacticianthe game has seen equipped with tools to overcome various tricky sitiuations. hendry beat davis in the 89 uk final as he began his dominance of the game but is it fair to say that although steve was world champion at the time, his best days had been in the early and mid eighties? i do believe that davis in his prime would be able to grind out a result against hendry in his

[Harry Hossack]

from what ive seen i think that hendry would generally beat davis when both at their very best but imo ronnie at his very best would beat heandry but there is no way of telling.

[gazza147]

I also Think Hendry was Far better than Davis ever was and Proved it when they 1st Started meeting each Other in Tourny's and Davis has even said this in Commentary that Hendry Took Snooker to Another Level and when you watch Snooker Video's/Dvd's you can see what Davis means.

Hendry was more attacking and even Started the Blue into Pink/Pack Shot before Anybody else! Hendry in his Best would have took some Stopping I think Ronnie is Definately the Most Gifted Player and on His Day could give anybody a Good Game but Hendry had the Head for it were Ronnie Not being nasty is Hot/Cold when he felt like it.

As I have said many times before if Ronnie Had Hendry's Brain at Times he would have been Unstoppable! As he is Unbeatable when he Brings his Right Head to the Game which he hasnt being doing for awhile.

[hotpot]

Even Ronnie at his best is beatable and has been beaten when playing great snooker . There are so many players now that are capable and do produce almost faultless allround snooker that they are all capable and do beat each other . The game is stronger than ever and there are around 10 players who are in the running from ther off of every tourny .

[bobzim]

This is the eternal question in sport where we try judge people from different eras and of course thee is no definitive right answer alll we can express are opinions an arguments to try back them up. That said for me Davis will always be superior for the simple reason that at their best both were all but unbeatable but on the occasions where that form dipped i believe Davis won far more matches where he wasn't playing at his peak.

[LittleMissAlexa]

But it could be argued it was easier for Davis to win a crop of players came through in the nineties that were superior to what came through in the eighties

[deant1982]

Davis had tougher opponents, not better opponents. There is a difference. Head to head, I think Davis would have pushed Hendry, but still come up short. Whilst Davis had the safety game, Hendry had the knack of making "that one crucial pot" when it really mattered. The "pressure" balls, that for years by the top players of the 80's were not being missed very often the late 80's by Hendry. When he was at his best in the early - mid 90's, they were never being missed. Whilst it would be an incredible battle, I have to think Hendry wins out, every time.

Ronnie can be devastating, but in a 2 day, 4 session match, I'd still give Hendry (at his peak) the edge as he could keep his concentration better. Ronnie tends to appear frustrated if he's playing brilliant but not walking away with a match, and becomes human and beatable again.

[The Statman]

Not to draw any particular conclusion because, as noted above, there are plenty of variables, but one thing that has to be considered is the number of ranking tournaments that existed in their respective times, when comparing results.

Steve Davis won the first of his 28 ranking titles at the 1981 World Championship. At this time the World was the only ranking event. There were 91 ranking events between his first and his last, the 1995 Welsh Open.

Looking at Hendry's first, the 1987 Grand Prix, and then seeing how many he had won 91 events later (which would go up to the 1998 Welsh Open) and his total at that time was ... 28 ranking titles!

There are a couple of ways of interpreting this, which perhaps slightly favours Davis. If we assume that the 'peak' of each player is about the same length of time, then Davis would be less likely to win as much because there were fewer events during his 'peak' than during Hendry's. It took Davis 14 years to win 28 titles and Hendry only a decade, but there were the same number of events for both in that time.

In fact their records in the 92 ranking events starting with their first title are remarkably similar -
Davis: 28 titles, 38 finals, 52 semis, 64 quarters
Handry: 28 titles, 39 finals, 49 semis, 63 quarters

But I'll leave each of us to come to our own conclusions!

[LittleMissAlexa]

This is going to sound weird but i think ronnies problem is he is too good and because he is too good thats why he gets frustrated when he isnt its like at school where the smart kid gets bored because the teacher is teaching something the kid learned three years earlier

[LittleMissAlexa]

Reply to statman

Davis didnt have to deal with the emergence of higgins O'Sullivan Williams Doherty and Ebdon during his peak for me that is the golden generation of snooker

[vmax4steve]

Even Ronnie at his best is beatable and has been beaten when playing great snooker . There are so many players now that are capable and do produce almost faultless allround snooker that they are all capable and do beat each other . The game is stronger than ever and there are around 10 players who are in the running from ther off of every tourny .

Table conditions are easier now and that gives players with lesser ability a better chance of beating the best. Ronnie could be at his peak finding the middle of the pocket while his opponent could be at his peak and getting them in off the jaws of the pockets. That's the difference these days, players aren't any better they just look like they are. Do you really believe that Trump and co could have competed with Reardon on an old tight table with a heavy napped cloth using crystalate balls ? Of course not. Table conditions dictate just how good a player can get and Trump's game would have been impossible in the '60's and early 70's.
That's the conundrum with trying to compare players of different eras. Davis had it easier than Reardon, Hendry had it easier than Davis and Trump has it easiest of all. I would love to see the BBC set up a match between Trump and O'Sullivan on an old table with an old type cloth using a set of old balls and see which one comes out on top. My money would be on Ronnie.

[hotpot]

Table conditions are easier now and that gives players with lesser ability a better chance of beating the best. Ronnie could be at his peak finding the middle of the pocket while his opponent could be at his peak and getting them in off the jaws of the pockets. That's the difference these days, players aren't any better they just look like they are. Do you really believe that Trump and co could have competed with Reardon on an old tight table with a heavy napped cloth using crystalate balls ? Of course not. Table conditions dictate just how good a player can get and Trump's game would have been impossible in the '60's and early 70's.
That's the conundrum with trying to compare players of different eras. Davis had it easier than Reardon, Hendry had it easier than Davis and Trump has it easiest of all. I would love to see the BBC set up a match between Trump and O'Sullivan on an old table with an old type cloth using a set of old balls and see which one comes out on top. My money would be on Ronnie.

The conditions may be better but the pockets are deffo tighter . Personally i think the players of Today are far superior and more skillful than Reardon Spencer etc , impossible to tell in different erras , just my opinion .

[LittleMissAlexa]

It could also be argued that Reardon and spencer may of struggled on these tables you will always play best on the cloth you are used to

[spike]

I remember the great John Spencer was interviewed in around 2000, and he said then he would need (at least) a 14 start against the likes of Higgins, Williams, O'Sullivan & Co..

[deant1982]

Do you really believe that Trump and co could have competed with Reardon on an old tight table with a heavy napped cloth using crystalate balls?

Nope. Even Ronnie would have struggled. The players that "hit" their shots would be struggling. The players that "stroke" the shot would do better. Higgins, Williams, Hendry, Murphy, Maguire would be ok, Stevens, Trump, Robertson would struggle.

I would love to see the BBC set up a match between Trump and O'Sullivan on an old table with an old type cloth using a set of old balls and see which one comes out on top. My money would be on Ronnie.

+1. Although I'd take Davis against either of them.

The conditions may be better but the pockets are deffo tighter.

Not sure I agree on that. I've played on tables 70/80/90 years old. Pocket size is negligable at best. My regular table is around 80 years old and is the tightest table I've played on.

I remember the great John Spencer was interviewed in around 2000, and he said then he would need (at least) a 14 start against the likes of Higgins, Williams, O'Sullivan & Co..

I think he'd need more than that now...... (sorry, that was a sick attempt at humour).
At his best John Spencer was well known as a great matchplayer, but he was also (lesser known) as a prolific break builder. I think he became the first person to achieve 3 centuries in 4 frames in competition. I like to think he would still compete against the big boys of this generation, but can't see him winning much more than an occasional "lesser" tournament/invitational/PTC.

Just my opinion.