Davis 80's Vs Hendry 90's

[CueAntW147]

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

Amazing that when you see it in black & white how close there records are thanks for that :-)

Both clearly greats of there time but when i think of Davis & Hendry i also think of The Hurricane & The Whirlwind who battled against them, who no doubt would have won more had it not been for Davis & Hendry.

Maybe going off thread a little here but regardless of the amount of titles won, we all remember great moments more i think as Clive Everton said Alex had a career of great moments rather than successive title wins but the public decides who its hero's are and Alex is certainly one of those, the same could be said of Jimmy ( except of course ) that illusive world title win but what a great achievement in itself to reach all those finals.

And it goes to show in any era you need the winners, the underdogs and the hero's to make for a great exciting game........

[hotpot]

I,m talking about the pockets on Tv muck , yes there are tight club tables but the pockets on tv in the 70 s and 80 s were in my opinion deffo bigger than Today .

[vmax4steve]

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 .

Personally I think that the players of yesteryear were more skilfull because the conditions were harder. Cloths had a heavier nap, making them slower, pockets were definately tighter because they were cut differently, and the balls were heavier. A player like Ally Carter basically has a plain ball stun run thru and screw game because the tables he learnt on were faster with bigger pockets and lighter balls, making that sort of game easier to play. Reardon learnt on old tables with heavy cloths and tighter pockets and with heavier balls. That plain ball stun run thru, screw game would have worked on those tables only to a certain degree.
Eddie Charlton played that sort of game to about the best standard that it could be taken in those days, but he never won a world title. The world titles belonged to Reardon, Spencer and Higgins who played the game using side which gave them the positional edge over Charlton. Using side is harder than playing plain ball, as todays players show when they try to use it, which isn't very often, but then they don't have to when a ball can be hit as hard as you like into a pocket that will take it and the cue ball will travel all around the table on a cloth with hardly any nap that has been kept warm by a table heater.
I also believe that players of past eras would not be able to play consistantly well these days because the game that they play is intrinsically a part of them and even though they know that the way to do it now is to play a stun run thru they will naturally throw in the sort of shot they always have played and will be more prone to miss those sort of shots as side spin on a cloth with hardly any nap is so different to play than on a cloth with a heavier nap.
Of course they would be able to adjust to the modern cloth and the way side reacts on it but just now and again they will forget and throw in a natural one. This is I believe what happened to Alex Higgins in the 80's and to Steve Davis in the 90's and to Stephen Hendry and Jimmy White in the noughties and is happening to Ronnie O' Sullivan now. The transition into different conditions at the latter part of players careers coincides with their loss of performance, and as seen, if the difference in conditions makes the game easier to play then lesser talents can come through and the playing standards look to be more widely spread than they in fact are.
The harder something is then the chances that only one or two can get to the standard needed to be great at it is surely the case. Make it easier and the standard needed to be great is not so high and more will reach that standard.

[Ronnie's tip]

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.

Mark Williams said the same thing on twitter.

[bonoman1970]

i think you will find that Davis was potting blues and smashing the pack open when hendry was still in nappies, if ronnie had steve davis's brain he would have been unstopable, hendrys shot selections ,knowledge and tactics have always been questionable, great player tho he was.

[bonoman1970]

Must add that Hendrys technique has always been flawed, he was confidence player who played without thinking,and now hes got no confidence he is ****unlike Davis who always Knew the technique of snooker inside out and back to front.Im not knocking Hendry he was one of the all time greats , I believe strongly Davis is /was better!

[cox orange pippin]

From what I've seen, at their very best, Ronnie is the best. Having said that, if you were to ask Ronnie who the greatest ever was, I think he would say Davis....Joe Davis.

[mattyshinobi22]

i think you will find that Davis was potting blues and smashing the pack open when hendry was still in nappies, if ronnie had steve davis's brain he would have been unstopable, hendrys shot selections ,knowledge and tactics have always been questionable, great player tho he was.

yeap, some stuff people forget about davis, has seems too long ago now. also i used to enjoy the old break building were players used to keep nudging balls out of the pack, rather than smash the pack early on.

[the nugget]

yeap, some stuff people forget about davis, has seems too long ago now. also i used to enjoy the old break building were players used to keep nudging balls out of the pack, rather than smash the pack early on.

yep matty correct and he was the master at developn1g balls out from the pack at w1ll, yeah t1me seems to do th1s to our memor1es of just how good dav1s and hendry really were

[the nugget]

me "eyes" wont work so hav1n ta use 11111111111`s

[147Snookered]

It's hard to answer this question without thinking about who I would actually want to win. I would love to see Hendry win this match up. But who actually would is difficult to say and we'll never actually know!

[merlin1234]

Ok so who has the "best" 147 break out of Davis or Hendry?

I remember Davis Lada 147 being fantastic, can't remember one of Hendry's I like quite as much.

[vmax4steve]

What an awful lot of people fail to remember about Steve Davis is just what a great long potter he was. So many times he took a long red from the other blokes break off shot and compiled a frame winning break. The fact that he never took chances and played the percentage shot makes people believe he was a great tactician, but that is wrong. His matches were never long drawn out safety exchanges but mostly concise and precise potting and break building and playing safe only when the shot demanded it.
Reardon was a far greater tactician than Steve Davis, probably the greatest of all which is why Ronnie went to him for mentoring.

Hendry was simply an outstanding potter and positional player, hence all those century breaks. But now that that has left him he has nothing else to fall back on. Losing his original cue, modern table conditions and reaching that certain age have conspired against him all at once.

[the nugget]

good post steve was a fine long potter and with hendry the above is probably true, pity tho he went on the slide too early

[fateric]

I remember Steve Davis commentating a while ago saying John Higgins would've annihilated Alex. Straight from the horses mouth.

Also John Parrott when practicing at a club in Sheffield was told by an old timer that no-one had ever made a century on that table with the slow cloth and ultra-tight pockets. Parrott made 8 centuries in his session.

The best players there has ever been could adjust to any condition, be it slow cloths, small pockets etc within a weeks practise. That's why they're the best players.