This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Stephen Hendry article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
The World Snooker website lists Hendry's prize money up until 2007/8 i.e not including season just finished as £8,396,485. He is also unless there is another player who us going to get a 147 in line to bank at least £181.000 from the 2009 World Snooker championship apart from anything else he won this year which might have been at least £100,000- so would be nice to know excatly how far from £9 million he is. Seems baring another 147 and if he is knocked out in 1/4 final, and won at least £100,000 during rest of season that at the end of sheffield he is at in and around £8,677.485 ? -- 78.16.6.45 ( talk) 12:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I have changed the format for wins and Runner Up's to be more like the way it is done on tennis articles, see Roger Federer for a reference. I find this format much easier to read, as well as giving more information. I have finished all the wins that I could find for Hendry although there are several missing, as well as adding in who his opponent was and the final score where possible.
I have not yet done his Runner-up table, and if no-one else does this I will do so at some point in the next week or so.
I also added in a performance time-line for the three "major" tournaments (masters, world and UK), but should a line be added for the Grand Prix, since this is also a BBC televised tournament?
-- ninman 11:07 22 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.0.249 ( talk)
I assume the 'deciding frame' mentioned for the 147 was the last possible frame of the match? If not, the statement is incorrect, as Mark Williams clinched his 10-1 win over [{Rob Milkins]] with a 147. -- MartinUK 20:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
This article makes several references to "Stephen Bendry".
This is incorrect.
The player's name is "Stephen Hendry"
87.228.229.103 06:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC) This must have been corrected, as i find no referance to any "Bendry" -- CrazyChip 13:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Should we change all the snooker related years to represent seasons and not years?
Exs: a victory in 1992 could be a victory in the 1992/1993 season or the 1991/1992 season. --
CrazyChip
13:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I am considering re-writing pieces of this article, as the article isn't well written. In particular, the "playing style" section and other bits seem to have needless,vague and possibly untrue statements. eg."In the final, however, a nightmare run of missed pots in the evening session shattered Hendry's confidence, and he went on to lose 6-10 to Peter Ebdon." Surely, Hendry lost 6-10 to Peter Ebdon would suffice here. Can a more experienced Wikipedian give me the go-ahead, as I am a relative newbie... Andy4226uk 22:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The references used here should be cited with the {{cite web}} template. It is VERY important that material cited from webpages includes the date of retrieval. -- CrazyChip 12:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
A section has recently been added about Hendry winning the Triple Crown. I have never heard of the Triple Crown in snooker, could somebody please put a definition within the text, or create a wikilink to a relevant page? Andy4226uk 10:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Words such as "poor" and "disappointing" have led to my addition of the tag. I'll likely edit the article to remove these at some point. - Dudesleeper · Talk 14:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Didn't we have a better pic of him before? The new one is pretty amateurish (no offense intended! I just mean that it is a bit washed-out, and not particularly illustrative, since we're only seeing him from the side and rather occluded). — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Just "for the record" I would really like to see our new anon contributor suggest some compromise language on the world record material. It's been expressed in edit summaries that the "O'Sullivanful" language isn't appropriate for this particular article, since this is Hendry's article, not O'Sullivan's. I have to concur with that. Is there a middle-ground approach we can use? — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Btw I would just like to add that Stephen Hendry was the record holder of most maximum breaks and most televised maximum breaks until this season when O'Sullivan tied the record for most maximum breaks and broke the record for most televised maximum breaks. The way it's stated doesn't make it clear that the record WAS Hendry's alone but is not anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.143.154.173 ( talk) 22:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Memory is telling me he's also the holder of the record for the number of centuries in a season, as well as being something like second, third, fourth and fifth (!) for his achievements doing this in different years... but I can't find a source for it. Can anyone else? Lovingboth ( talk) 11:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
That part of the article has been tagged as containing too much jargon. I'm not sure I agree. Other than the redundant "methodically working through the majority of break-building opportunities", which could be removed, that section reflects accurately how the subject plays snooker and highlights the reasons for his success. One has to assume some knowledge of snooker or billiard sports when reading an article about a top professional player. It's by no means top heavy with jargon. Comments? bigpad ( talk) 11:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Will people please keep an eye on this. Hendry has won 65 PROFESSIONAL titles in his career, not 79. He has won more than that in his professional career but the others were pro-ams at the start. The record for professional titles stands at 73 with Steve Davis. He has won the Scottish professional championship three times as well, but despite the terminology some good amateur players were allowed to enter technically making it a pro-am (as with Davis' two English Championships and why his tally stands at 73 and not 75). If by chance I missed a pro title off his record, by all means update the total but please add the title to his tournaments sction. It is important that pro titles and pro-ams are not confused. Sometimes you will see sloppy journalism and fansites report that he has won more titles than Davis - this is true because Davis did not have distinguished amateur or pro-am career, but this is an article about a professional career so the total should record only professional titles. WalterMitty ( talk) 01:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I've never heard that he pioneered that shot. I was watching the game before Hendry came along and have seen Alex Higgins play that shot - or at least one like that, so unless Hendry does something unique with it I don't think he should be given credit for it, and it should at least be mentioned that a similar type of shot was already in existence. I'll leave it for the time being to give time to find a citation, but since it's a disputed fact it can't stay in indefinitely without a reference. WalterMitty ( talk) 21:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The person who keeps amending the opening paragraph saying he is regarded as the greatest player of all time is getting very tiresome. While many people are of the opinion, there are plenty out there who would say the same about Ronnie, Alex Higgins, Steve Davis, Joe Davis and even Jimmy White. In the biography section can we just stick to the facts please, and that's relaying his achievements and records. There is a section on Ronnie's page called 'Status within the game' that quotes various players hailing him as a genius or the best player ever, so if you want to comment on how Hendry is perceived in the game I suggest you establish another section and make sure you give citations for the various comments, otherwise we will have half a dozen player profiles where the player is hailed as the 'greatest ever' in the introduction. WalterMitty ( talk) 18:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't do it without checking (it reads that at the moment, btw) but I don't see the problem. In the past I have seen this article read 'Hendry is one of the most successful players of all time' which is plain wrong, he is by any measure, the most SUCCESSFUL, that can easily be put down as fact. And saying, at the moment, that he is 'widely regarded' as the greatest player of all time is surely absolutely fine - its not saying that he IS, but it accurately reflects the opinions of the majority of snooker spectators, players and pundits. This label has been used about players across a host of other sports, I see no problem with it being applied to Hendry for snooker. The statement as it stands at the moment leaves room for people to disagree if they want, but is an accurate factual representation of the way Hendry is generally perceived in the game. In no other sports do greatest players need a special section entitled 'status' in the game, and in the intro to O'Sullivan it likewise states that he is regarded as the most naturally talented in the game. So the entry as it reads now, saying 'widely regarded as the greatest' is absolutely fine. Jleadermaynard ( talk) 11:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
WalterMitty, that's a spurious argument throughout. The poll you quote is not a poll at all but a selection of opinions submitted to the BBC, which by company policy are chosen to show a diverse range of views from those that are submitted - the fact that there is a mixture of choices is representative of this choice to present diversity, not an representation of opinion. Equally, as the comments make clear, many people are holding their opinion on the basis of who did the most for the development of the game - which is in reality a seperate issue (we could change the wording to 'best player' if that'd be preferred). When the BBC asked the players and commentators in 2000 the parameters were the same. In terms of objective facts Hendry is unquestionably the most successful player of all time - Joe Davis world championships were not even knockout tournaments for the most part, the defending champion merely had to play a single challenge match to hold his title. Even in Hendry's five consecutive world championships, he won more matches that Davis played in his 14. The world title was a completely different event at the time, which is why Hendry is universally recognised as holding the world record 7 world titles. Equally, if you want to do any kind of objective comparison on ablity, it's simply a non-debate. Joe Davis went a good deal of his career before he even made a century break, Hendry has made over 700. Hendry, as the entry already makes clear, has won more ranking titles, world titles, masters titles, Triple Crown titles, made more centuries, won more prize money and been World No.1 for longer than any other player. There should is no dispute that he is the most successful player of all time. 'Success' is a nebulous property but not a subjective one, in Hendry's case the categories are too clear to not place it in the article. I am restoring the wording back to its original, and providing four citations justifying the claim that he is 'widely considered' to be the greatest player - including the entry on Hendry's profile by the BBC, hardly a source which casually fills its entries with contentious subjective opinions. This is a factual statement, and I have provided citations as requested, far more indeed that on many of the sports entries on wikipedia which use similar phrases. If people wish to remove it, would they please provide justification not as to why other players may also be considered to be one of the most successful/greatest players (by all means say that under their profiles if you wish) but why an accurate representation of sourced opinion should not be included in the entry. But I trust that will not be necessary, and we can now treat this issue as settled. Jleadermaynard ( talk) 11:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Jleadermaynard ( talk) 09:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Jleadermaynard: How does one measure success? That is, how does one determine which player is the most successful? Sunray ( talk) 14:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted the edits made by Gwernal. I've been following the arguments with some interest with good points made by both sides, but Gwernal has removed some of WalterMitty's statements on the basis he is 'banned'. Following up on this I checked that Waltermitty and Jleadermaynard had an edit conflict in which the 3RR rule was violated by both parties. I notice on WalterMitty's profile he has been banned for 6 months (after being instructed to take it discussion, and from the dates he he already had done) and Jleadermaynard wasn't banned at all, so some nice balanced judgment, there. I see Gwernal didn't make any attempt to mediate the conflict so I think he was irresponisble in this respect. I also think it's irresponsible how he's deleted valid points made here to weaken the debate so I've undone the changes so all points are included, and then decisions can be made on the strength of a full debate. 81.131.64.241 ( talk) 22:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
hey, have no desire to get involved in this debate in a big way but for what another opinion is worth jleadermaynard is quite right on what i think is general opinion in the snooker world. nobody these days seriously compares joe davis and stephen hendry, their world titles are totally different. what's wrong with the current edit, saying he's the successful one in the modern game seems fine. dudesleeper, we base articles on each other all the time and we should - if all the other sports pages say one sort of thing and snooker doesn't, that's pretty misleading in my book. other sports indicate which of their players is considered most successful, snooker should too, its information that should be conveyed to people, especially if its got references. Just my views. 86.135.88.219 ( talk) 23:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your response to my question, Jleadermaynard. I think that the crux of your response is in your points #2 & 3:
2) While I think the criteria of success could be based upon the number of categories in which Hendry is dominant, I don't think that has to be the 'correct' criteria for my standpoint here to be valid,as the phrasing 'widely considered to be' makes the question more about opinion in the sport rather than whether my own personal argument is valid. I have sourced authorities to back it up... 3) If the criteria of success is the problem, this is a problem for any sport we could think of. But on wikipedia the kind of comment I am suggesting has been applied to a plethora of sporting figures...
I have two comments on your reply:
Do you agree on these two points? What do others think? Sunray ( talk) 00:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Very briefly to respond to WalterMitty - your points ignore the responses I've already given to these arguments. I have provided a criteria of success above (a dozen records held by Hendry is not equivalent to one record held by Davis or another individual player), I just don't think its the central point. And what constitutes success is only opinionated in the way that the vast majority of the meanings underpinning facts on wikipedia can be disputed and so rest upon some kind of belief - that doesn't make them opinionated (as in 'non-cognitive') in the way required to exclude them from encyclopaedic style. Again, I don't see why the compromise outlined above is unreasonable. Jleadermaynard ( talk) 01:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
First of all, a 6 month ban is not justified in any respects. If you check the edits I made after I received the warning about removing sources you will see I amended the article to alter the wording but left the sources in. Gwernal actually banned me on a false pretext. A 6 month ban is completely unreasonable so it won't be honoured. If the wiki community want to make a decision 'against' me rather on what is in the best interest of the article so be it.
The records that count are: world championships (Joe Davis); pro titles (Steve Davis); ranking titles (Hendry); these are the three criteria that separate winners from losers. Only titles can provide criteria for a player's success, after all winning is the goal! Prize money can be considered like in Pool but would have to be adjusted for inflation. These are statements of fact: "Joe Davis is the most successful player in the history of the snooker world championships"; "Steve Davis is the most successful player in pro snooker tournaments"; "Stephen Hendry is the most successful player on the snooker ranking circuit"; These are not opinions but statements of fact. You cannot dispute these because there are hard stats backing them up. To follow jleadermaynard's reasoning we have to discriminate between criteria. Seriously, when one player has won the MOST PROFESSIONAL TOURNAMENTS or the MOST WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS how can you seriously select another player to be the definitive "greatest"?
It's as clear as day that jleadermaynard is trying to introduce fan bias into the article. It's not like Dudesleeper or myself are arguing that Hendry should be precluded from consideration as the greatest, we are just trying to avert a wording that precludes other players that have a legimate claim to the article. WalterMitty ( talk) 02:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Should ti not be acknowledged that some of Davis' wins, especially in the UK championship were not ranking victories merely because of the ranking systme not including them, and yet they all were for Hendry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.254.1 ( talk) 10:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Why is Stephen Hendry added to this Category? He's not from Perth & Kinross, he's from Lothian. I know he lives just outside Auchterarder now but that doesn't change where he is from. Thoughts? Grievous Angel ( talk) 09:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
He was born in South Queensferry and moved to Edinburgh at a young age
I have never heard of any of the nicknames attributed to Hendry and it would seem that other suggestions have been removed without explanation. I would think for consistency that unless a name can backed by a citation than they are not included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loadedlumper ( talk • contribs) 19:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Hendrys nickname in snooker was indeed the Iceman during the 90's —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottishpokertour ( talk • contribs) 17:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
"In the next 3 professional tournaments (UK Championship, Masters and the Welsh Open), Hendry lost in the first round to Stephen Lee, Neil Robertson and Martin Gould respectivley. He found some form in China Open, beating Robert Milkins and Ricky Walden, only to lose in quater-final with Peter Ebdon, the future winner of the tournament."
Can someone run a spellcheck over respectivley and quater (sic), and perhaps rephrase the last couple of clauses? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.246.161 ( talk) 20:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I can't find Hendry's MBE in the London Gazette. Is there an editor more familiar with the subject who can provide the citation? Have searched for "Stephen" & "Hendry" and "Order of the British Empire from December 1990 to November 2012 at the London Gazette without a result.
Karl Stephens ( talk) 10:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
The New Year Honours List 1995 at the London Gazette record those appointed to To be Ordinary Members of the Civil Division of the said Most Excellent Order however Hendry does not appear as expected in the alphabetical list on page 19.
Karl Stephens ( talk) 11:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
No mention of the fact that he threatened to leave Scotland if the Scots voted in favour of Devolution, or that he apparently still lives here? It was widely publicised at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.125.67.44 ( talk) 14:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Does this really belong in the lead? I say it doesn't, it's recentism and hardly a very important fact about him. Finn Rindahl ( talk) 23:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
An anonymous editor is repeatedly adding that Hendry is "considered to be one of the greatest snooker players of all time" to the lead. While this is undoubtedly true, epithets should be attributed specifically to people who regard him in this manner per WP:FLOWERY and preferably not to snooker forums and blog comments on a BBC article per WP:BLOGS. I am not opposed to such claims being included in the article, but ultimately they are just opinions and need to be attributed to people qualified to make such assessments. Betty Logan ( talk) 22:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Stephen Hendry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Stephen Hendry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Stephen Hendry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Stephen Hendry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Hendry won 5 consecutive World Championships from 1992-1996, is that a record in the modern day, I know Joe Davis one more consecutive but he was not the modern day. Can someone verify this as I would like to add it if it is true. Amy foster ( talk) 16:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We should probably talk about this rather than getting into an edit war. Even to say he's "one of the most successful players in the modern era of snooker" is pushing it, but to state that he's actually the greatest is blatant puffery and a matter of opinion. OK, World Snooker made that claim in an article four years ago, but it is still only the opinion of a body of observers who all have their individual opinions. Hendry's success is clear and can be measured in terms of number of wins, career earnings, etc. But is he the greatest? People might look back in a few years and say that about O'Sullivan. But everyone's entitled to their opinion. Rodney Baggins ( talk) 12:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
It is clear that the disruptive behaviour of one editor has created an aversion to common sense and good practice. I am a snooker fan with great respect for both O’Sullivan and Hendry. I do not think it is appropriate to call either “the greatest” in their own right as other editors have attempted as their achievements are not directly comparable. Rather both should receive equal recognition and consistent language used to describe their achievements. I have no association with any other editors and to suggest that my intentions are not honourable is disrespectful. Please can we apply some common sense here to avoid ongoing edit wars between both pages. I have applied consistent language to that used in the O’Sullivan page. If you have objections please ensure you apply the same language between both pages. Thank you, Mark Barness MBarness1234 ( talk) 21:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Lee Vilenski: MBarness1234 ( talk) 21:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Betty Logan: . MBarness1234 ( talk) 21:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
There's a detailed interview in The Guardian [3] that we're not using yet, which not only summarizes his book but has some unique-to-that-publication material that is pertinent to how/why his pro snooker career came to an end. In it, he also actually dismisses the claim that he just had a case of "the yips", but rather was suffering a more serious set of problems, a general loss of focus and faith in his playing ability, and anger/embarrassment issues when losing to low-ranked younger pros. Even says his final maximum break was pretty much by accident. Lots of interesting stuff in there (albeit for use within WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:PRIMARYSOURCE limits). I'll leave it to regular editors of this page to decide what to integrate. Oh, and it also goes a little bit into his transition into pool (though I'm not certain whether they mean eight-ball or British style eightball pool / blackball, being an "ambassador" of the game in China. I'm not sure what that entails, in detail, though it's worth looking into further so we can update his article and lead and categorization as it pertains to pool. Hendry's not actually retired, he's just no longer competing in snooker on the pro circuit, while he is doing other cue-sports-related things instead. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Last month Mrloop removed Eve Muirhead's comments from the "status" section on the grounds that her views were not relevant. An anonymous editor subsequently restored the comment on the grounds that the views of different sportspeople are relevant.
I have no particular view on that, and you can make the case for either position. However, the comment was not particularly well integrated with the existing prose. Both O'Sullian and Bingham had essentially considered the same point earlier in the paragraph, so I simply relocated Muirhead's comment to alongside O'Sullivan's and Bingham's, and tidied up the reference (which was not correctly formatted).
The editor subsequently reverted my edit with the immature edit summary accusing me of "downplaying" Hendry's "achievement". I think an objective appraisal of my edit would indeed agree that this is nonsense. Here are the three competing versions:
O'Sullivan himself has dismissed the suggestion that he is the greatest player and believes that a player must equal Hendry's haul of seven world titles to be regarded in this capacity. [1] Former world champion Stuart Bingham also takes a statistical view of the question, stating that O'Sullivan is the "best player to pick up a cue" but Hendry's record of seven world titles settles the debate as to who the greatest player is. [2] Desmond Kane of Eurosport has argued that if it were purely a statistical question then Joe Davis's fifteen world championships would settle the issue, that there is no real difference between the "greatest" and the "best", and that O'Sullivan has played snooker to a higher standard than anyone. [3] However, the Olympian Eve Muirhead considers the status of the World Snooker Championship as snooker's most prestigious tournament and Hendry's modern-era record settles Hendry's position as the greatest ever snooker player. [4]
O'Sullivan himself has dismissed the suggestion that he is the greatest player and believes that a player must equal Hendry's haul of seven world titles to be regarded in this capacity. [5] Former world champion Stuart Bingham also takes a statistical view of the question, stating that O'Sullivan is the "best player to pick up a cue" but Hendry's record of seven world titles settles the debate as to who the greatest player is. [6] Likewise, former curling world champion Eve Muirhead considers the prestige of the World Championship as snooker's most prestigious tournament and Hendry's modern-era record as decisive in determining Hendry's position as the greatest ever snooker player. [7] However, Desmond Kane of Eurosport has argued that if it were purely a statistical question then Joe Davis's fifteen world championships would settle the issue, that there is no real difference between the "greatest" and the "best", and that O'Sullivan has played snooker to a higher standard than anyone. [8]
O'Sullivan himself has dismissed the suggestion that he is the greatest player and believes that a player must equal Hendry's haul of seven world titles to be regarded in this capacity. [9] Former world champion Stuart Bingham also takes a statistical view of the question, stating that O'Sullivan is the "best player to pick up a cue" but Hendry's record of seven world titles settles the debate as to who the greatest player is. [10] Desmond Kane of Eurosport has argued that if it were purely a statistical question then Joe Davis's fifteen world championships would settle the issue, that there is no real difference between the "greatest" and the "best", and that O'Sullivan has played snooker to a higher standard than anyone. [11]
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (
link)
I have a personal preference but I can live with any version. Can we get a quick straw poll please and settle this issue quickly. Betty Logan ( talk) 18:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
I’m not in favour of including Muirhead’s or Kane’s comments. The points about Muirhead have been made and I think the same can be said for Kane - he is not particularly well known in the world of snooker and his views don’t hold much more weight than anyone else, including Muirhead’s. Views from professional snooker players carry more weight. This section is also on the long side. I’d suggest ending the section on Bingham’s comment and removing Muirhead’s and Kane’s comments. This should also hopefully remove the tension from IP about positioning. Sportismygame ( talk) 20:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Betty Logan: It is me, the IP who made the edit. I disagree with Nigel, Lee, Sportismyname, and you. There are some absolutely nobodies who are referenced there like Desmond Kane. Who is that!? He doesn’t even have a Wikipedia page. Eve Muirhead is a professional athlete. She understands the importance of the big events. Like the Olympics and in snooker’s case the World Championship. Get rid of her reference and it’s just a one-sided ramble. And FYI - you were the one who was trying to edit war until I highlighted the importance of talking it through. (IP Guy) 92.233.89.74 ( talk) 22:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, it’s me. The IP guy! I have decided to make an account as it makes contributing to this page easier. You will see I have edited the status part of the Stephen Hendry page. Having reflected on this, whilst not wanting to drop it, I can live without the Eve Muirhead comment in the interests of finding a solution. However taking it away leads to a rather anti-Hendry and pro-O’Sullivan position. I’ve therefore made an amendment to remove the Eve Muirhead line and reordered the content of the status section. I think we should get rid of the Demond Kane comment (who is a bit of a nobody) but can live with it in the interest of moving on if the ordering I have put forward works for others. Hope this is a satisfactory solution. MrLogan666 ( talk) 14:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I am highly sceptical of Betty Logan’s approach, which seems to be pushing a pro-O’Sullivan POV. In any case, I won’t engage in an edit war. I think the Desmond Kane comment merits removal so will raise a separate discussion about that. MrLogan666 ( talk) 07:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
A comment from Eve Muirhead was recently removed from the Status section. The consensus for this was found primarily on the basis that it was from someone who is not a snooker professional. Following the same logic, I believe the comment from Desmond Kane should also be removed. This is on the basis that he is a bit of an unknown source (e.g. doesn’t even have his own Wikipedia page) and is not a former player. I concur with the view of Nigej, stated in the Muirhead discussion, that “The only ones qualified to pass comment are probably fellow professionals.” I would like to follow this approach and remove the Desmond Kane comment. I think this logic should also be applied to any future additions to this section of the page, otherwise it risks becoming unwieldily with comments from relative unknowns.
In further support of this, I would add that the section is on the long side, is rather pro-O’Sullivan and is not particularly neutral, and because of this is likely to be susceptible to edit wars.
Please can I get a canvas of views on my proposal to remove the Desmond Kane comment and hopefully find a consensus? MrLogan666 ( talk) 07:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I can understand those points but would argue if we keep the reference then we are looking at a rather biased pro-O’Sullivan section. Furthermore, we can’t add every point of view on this issue as there are hundreds and this section would become unwieldy. I would question why Desmond Kane should feature given there are much better known sources who could be added to the mix. Therefore, in the interests of finding some balance to the narrative and to make this section manageable, I suggest the Desmond Kane comment should go. MrLogan666 ( talk) 10:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
My point is that there are more pro-O’Sullivan opinions than pro-Hendry, thereby lacking balance and overall neutrality. MrLogan666 ( talk) 12:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I think Desmond Kane is probably a better source than Eve Muirhead but it can be reasonably argued either way whether his opinion is relevant enough to sit alongside professional snooker players. However I agree the section is slightly lacking in balance if the Desmond Kane opinion is retained. To address this, you could add another comment. As Ronnie’s views have been covered, it would probably merit adding in something from the man himself. Sportismygame ( talk) 13:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I’m still against the Desmond Kane comment but will work with Sportismyname’s suggestion in the interest of trying to find a solution. MrLogan666 ( talk) 13:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I don’t think that Desmond Kane’s opinion is completely irrelevant, just that there are better sources.
In any case, I’ve added a comment from Hendry which I think adds value and overall a bit of balance to this section. We now have comments from Ronnie, Hendry, other players, and a snooker commentator. A good mix. I agree the section could do with a bit of an overhaul but hope people are happy with this in the meantime, that we have consensus, and can move on. Thoughts? MrLogan666 ( talk) 21:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
The following text was removed as "unsourced". I find this curious. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 14:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
References
I've been bold and taken a stab at re-writing this section. The World Snooker reference was out of date. As O'Sullivan is still playing, quotes from 15 years ago are not much use. -- hippo43 ( talk) 00:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
As mentioned in the main page, there is a live discussion already on this issue in the talk page under the section of ‘Desmond Kane Comment and Balance of Status Section’. As it’s a live discussion, please contribute to that and even state your suggested changes in the talk pages rather than making wholesale changes to the main page. MrLogan666 ( talk) 07:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Given the above, further comments shouldn’t be added to this section of the talk page. MrLogan666 ( talk) 07:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Have another look - the section of the talk page is entitled ‘Desmond Kane Comment and Balance of Status Section’. The discussion is focused on the Desmond Kane comment and the whole status section generally. The discussion you have raised is therefore duplicating on an existing live discussion so please raise your comments under the aforementioned section. Just to note that I am not totally against your proposed changes (subject to some small tweaks) but we need to find consensus before making changes to long-standing content. MrLogan666 ( talk) 15:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC) Mr Logan, if you are so keen to discuss something, why aren't you discussing it? And why you keep adding a source that is out of date and doesn't say what it used to say? -- hippo43 ( talk) 16:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
I’ve raised 5 comments in the section of the talk page mentioned. If you wish to add to that discussion then please do so. MrLogan666 ( talk) 17:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Not sure there is a benefit to having a separate section in this talk page on the same topic but in the interests of moving things along, here it goes.
I was generally in favour of your previous edit of the status section as you rightly highlighted the sources were dated. The section was also too long. I’d be happy to go with what you suggested, subject to a minor tweak to remove the retirement point. This is because it suggests the view of Hendry being the ‘greatest’ was only held at the time of his retirement but not at any time before or after. A new new source/sources will also be needed for the first reference:
“Hendry's achievements led many to consider him the greatest snooker player ever.[48] More recently, this has been challenged by Ronnie O'Sullivan's continued success, and some commentators consider O'Sullivan to have surpassed Hendry.[49][50][51][52]” MrLogan666 ( talk) 20:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Hippo43: Your thoughts would be appreciated. MrLogan666 ( talk) 17:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
some commentators consider O'Sullivan to have surpassed Hendry.doesn't really cover the deal at all. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 17:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Advanced apologies if this isn't in the correct part of this Talk, however, in my opinion I'd question as to whether we should have a 'Status' section at all for both Hendry and Ronnie O'Sullivan. There isn't one for Joe Davis who, prior to Steve Davis' dominance of the game in the 80's, was universally regarded as the greatest ever, nor for Steve Davis who, during his dominance of the game was seen as the only 'challenger' to Joe Davis' 'greatest ever' tag. How do you consider someone as 'the greatest'? I would say it's purely a subjective matter of opinion. I also think the section on this page is too long - how many past or current players do we source quotes from? Do we list them all? If the consensus is that there should be a 'greatest' status section then I actually prefer the text from MrLogan666 above. Maybe consideration needs to be made as to having a 'Greatest Snooker Player' article in it's own right. Steveflan ( talk) 11:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree completely with the above two comments. Better to remove these sections completely. They're generally not encyclopedic, just listing a seemingly random selection of other people's opinions. Nigej ( talk) 20:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
I think there should be a status section given how important the GOAT debate is to snooker. The current wording is too long for me and I like the brevity of what MrLogan666 has stated as it removes the need for constant flipping between different views. Sportismygame ( talk) 18:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
The lead section mentions Hendry's records within the modern era but doesn't define what the "modern era" is. When did it begin? -- Jameboy ( talk) 13:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
I distinctly remember Clive Everton in commentary (many, many years ago!) describing how Stephen Hendry attempted to win all ranking tournaments in the 1990-91 season (and subsequently suffered from exhaustion, contributing to the Crucible Curse). However, this alleged plan is not mentioned in this article or in the article on that season. Are there any references for this? Is it even true? Clearly he did win the first four ranking tournaments, and his streak was broken by Jimmy White in the final of the 1991 Classic. But then, Hendry was actually pretty good :-) and this may not have been a part of any premeditated plan. KarlFrei ( talk) 07:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Just want to know if the wiki snooker community is considering making a separate section/chart to list snooker players Senior Tour titles count as a whole new category instead of the current practice of listing it under the current 'Non-ranking titles'. I cannot see what justifies the recently finished, single-framed final match tournament - Mr Vegas Seniors 900 tournament being listed in the same category as The Masters or the Champion of Champions or Shanghai Masters etc., they are completely different in importance and difficulties and should not belong in the same category. Even listing World Seniors Championship title alongside The Masters or the Champion of Champions is unfitting. Obviously they are tremendously different in importance, some may argue they would trade dozens and dozens Senior titles to just one Masters. Having a separate category would make it easier for new fans of the sport to recognize the differences in these tournaments and grasp the weight of the achievements of the players. 2605:52C0:1001:260:E000:68FF:FEFE:D3BC ( talk) 04:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Stephen Hendry article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
The World Snooker website lists Hendry's prize money up until 2007/8 i.e not including season just finished as £8,396,485. He is also unless there is another player who us going to get a 147 in line to bank at least £181.000 from the 2009 World Snooker championship apart from anything else he won this year which might have been at least £100,000- so would be nice to know excatly how far from £9 million he is. Seems baring another 147 and if he is knocked out in 1/4 final, and won at least £100,000 during rest of season that at the end of sheffield he is at in and around £8,677.485 ? -- 78.16.6.45 ( talk) 12:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I have changed the format for wins and Runner Up's to be more like the way it is done on tennis articles, see Roger Federer for a reference. I find this format much easier to read, as well as giving more information. I have finished all the wins that I could find for Hendry although there are several missing, as well as adding in who his opponent was and the final score where possible.
I have not yet done his Runner-up table, and if no-one else does this I will do so at some point in the next week or so.
I also added in a performance time-line for the three "major" tournaments (masters, world and UK), but should a line be added for the Grand Prix, since this is also a BBC televised tournament?
-- ninman 11:07 22 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.0.249 ( talk)
I assume the 'deciding frame' mentioned for the 147 was the last possible frame of the match? If not, the statement is incorrect, as Mark Williams clinched his 10-1 win over [{Rob Milkins]] with a 147. -- MartinUK 20:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
This article makes several references to "Stephen Bendry".
This is incorrect.
The player's name is "Stephen Hendry"
87.228.229.103 06:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC) This must have been corrected, as i find no referance to any "Bendry" -- CrazyChip 13:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Should we change all the snooker related years to represent seasons and not years?
Exs: a victory in 1992 could be a victory in the 1992/1993 season or the 1991/1992 season. --
CrazyChip
13:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I am considering re-writing pieces of this article, as the article isn't well written. In particular, the "playing style" section and other bits seem to have needless,vague and possibly untrue statements. eg."In the final, however, a nightmare run of missed pots in the evening session shattered Hendry's confidence, and he went on to lose 6-10 to Peter Ebdon." Surely, Hendry lost 6-10 to Peter Ebdon would suffice here. Can a more experienced Wikipedian give me the go-ahead, as I am a relative newbie... Andy4226uk 22:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The references used here should be cited with the {{cite web}} template. It is VERY important that material cited from webpages includes the date of retrieval. -- CrazyChip 12:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
A section has recently been added about Hendry winning the Triple Crown. I have never heard of the Triple Crown in snooker, could somebody please put a definition within the text, or create a wikilink to a relevant page? Andy4226uk 10:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Words such as "poor" and "disappointing" have led to my addition of the tag. I'll likely edit the article to remove these at some point. - Dudesleeper · Talk 14:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Didn't we have a better pic of him before? The new one is pretty amateurish (no offense intended! I just mean that it is a bit washed-out, and not particularly illustrative, since we're only seeing him from the side and rather occluded). — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Just "for the record" I would really like to see our new anon contributor suggest some compromise language on the world record material. It's been expressed in edit summaries that the "O'Sullivanful" language isn't appropriate for this particular article, since this is Hendry's article, not O'Sullivan's. I have to concur with that. Is there a middle-ground approach we can use? — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Btw I would just like to add that Stephen Hendry was the record holder of most maximum breaks and most televised maximum breaks until this season when O'Sullivan tied the record for most maximum breaks and broke the record for most televised maximum breaks. The way it's stated doesn't make it clear that the record WAS Hendry's alone but is not anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.143.154.173 ( talk) 22:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Memory is telling me he's also the holder of the record for the number of centuries in a season, as well as being something like second, third, fourth and fifth (!) for his achievements doing this in different years... but I can't find a source for it. Can anyone else? Lovingboth ( talk) 11:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
That part of the article has been tagged as containing too much jargon. I'm not sure I agree. Other than the redundant "methodically working through the majority of break-building opportunities", which could be removed, that section reflects accurately how the subject plays snooker and highlights the reasons for his success. One has to assume some knowledge of snooker or billiard sports when reading an article about a top professional player. It's by no means top heavy with jargon. Comments? bigpad ( talk) 11:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Will people please keep an eye on this. Hendry has won 65 PROFESSIONAL titles in his career, not 79. He has won more than that in his professional career but the others were pro-ams at the start. The record for professional titles stands at 73 with Steve Davis. He has won the Scottish professional championship three times as well, but despite the terminology some good amateur players were allowed to enter technically making it a pro-am (as with Davis' two English Championships and why his tally stands at 73 and not 75). If by chance I missed a pro title off his record, by all means update the total but please add the title to his tournaments sction. It is important that pro titles and pro-ams are not confused. Sometimes you will see sloppy journalism and fansites report that he has won more titles than Davis - this is true because Davis did not have distinguished amateur or pro-am career, but this is an article about a professional career so the total should record only professional titles. WalterMitty ( talk) 01:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I've never heard that he pioneered that shot. I was watching the game before Hendry came along and have seen Alex Higgins play that shot - or at least one like that, so unless Hendry does something unique with it I don't think he should be given credit for it, and it should at least be mentioned that a similar type of shot was already in existence. I'll leave it for the time being to give time to find a citation, but since it's a disputed fact it can't stay in indefinitely without a reference. WalterMitty ( talk) 21:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The person who keeps amending the opening paragraph saying he is regarded as the greatest player of all time is getting very tiresome. While many people are of the opinion, there are plenty out there who would say the same about Ronnie, Alex Higgins, Steve Davis, Joe Davis and even Jimmy White. In the biography section can we just stick to the facts please, and that's relaying his achievements and records. There is a section on Ronnie's page called 'Status within the game' that quotes various players hailing him as a genius or the best player ever, so if you want to comment on how Hendry is perceived in the game I suggest you establish another section and make sure you give citations for the various comments, otherwise we will have half a dozen player profiles where the player is hailed as the 'greatest ever' in the introduction. WalterMitty ( talk) 18:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't do it without checking (it reads that at the moment, btw) but I don't see the problem. In the past I have seen this article read 'Hendry is one of the most successful players of all time' which is plain wrong, he is by any measure, the most SUCCESSFUL, that can easily be put down as fact. And saying, at the moment, that he is 'widely regarded' as the greatest player of all time is surely absolutely fine - its not saying that he IS, but it accurately reflects the opinions of the majority of snooker spectators, players and pundits. This label has been used about players across a host of other sports, I see no problem with it being applied to Hendry for snooker. The statement as it stands at the moment leaves room for people to disagree if they want, but is an accurate factual representation of the way Hendry is generally perceived in the game. In no other sports do greatest players need a special section entitled 'status' in the game, and in the intro to O'Sullivan it likewise states that he is regarded as the most naturally talented in the game. So the entry as it reads now, saying 'widely regarded as the greatest' is absolutely fine. Jleadermaynard ( talk) 11:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
WalterMitty, that's a spurious argument throughout. The poll you quote is not a poll at all but a selection of opinions submitted to the BBC, which by company policy are chosen to show a diverse range of views from those that are submitted - the fact that there is a mixture of choices is representative of this choice to present diversity, not an representation of opinion. Equally, as the comments make clear, many people are holding their opinion on the basis of who did the most for the development of the game - which is in reality a seperate issue (we could change the wording to 'best player' if that'd be preferred). When the BBC asked the players and commentators in 2000 the parameters were the same. In terms of objective facts Hendry is unquestionably the most successful player of all time - Joe Davis world championships were not even knockout tournaments for the most part, the defending champion merely had to play a single challenge match to hold his title. Even in Hendry's five consecutive world championships, he won more matches that Davis played in his 14. The world title was a completely different event at the time, which is why Hendry is universally recognised as holding the world record 7 world titles. Equally, if you want to do any kind of objective comparison on ablity, it's simply a non-debate. Joe Davis went a good deal of his career before he even made a century break, Hendry has made over 700. Hendry, as the entry already makes clear, has won more ranking titles, world titles, masters titles, Triple Crown titles, made more centuries, won more prize money and been World No.1 for longer than any other player. There should is no dispute that he is the most successful player of all time. 'Success' is a nebulous property but not a subjective one, in Hendry's case the categories are too clear to not place it in the article. I am restoring the wording back to its original, and providing four citations justifying the claim that he is 'widely considered' to be the greatest player - including the entry on Hendry's profile by the BBC, hardly a source which casually fills its entries with contentious subjective opinions. This is a factual statement, and I have provided citations as requested, far more indeed that on many of the sports entries on wikipedia which use similar phrases. If people wish to remove it, would they please provide justification not as to why other players may also be considered to be one of the most successful/greatest players (by all means say that under their profiles if you wish) but why an accurate representation of sourced opinion should not be included in the entry. But I trust that will not be necessary, and we can now treat this issue as settled. Jleadermaynard ( talk) 11:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Jleadermaynard ( talk) 09:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Jleadermaynard: How does one measure success? That is, how does one determine which player is the most successful? Sunray ( talk) 14:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted the edits made by Gwernal. I've been following the arguments with some interest with good points made by both sides, but Gwernal has removed some of WalterMitty's statements on the basis he is 'banned'. Following up on this I checked that Waltermitty and Jleadermaynard had an edit conflict in which the 3RR rule was violated by both parties. I notice on WalterMitty's profile he has been banned for 6 months (after being instructed to take it discussion, and from the dates he he already had done) and Jleadermaynard wasn't banned at all, so some nice balanced judgment, there. I see Gwernal didn't make any attempt to mediate the conflict so I think he was irresponisble in this respect. I also think it's irresponsible how he's deleted valid points made here to weaken the debate so I've undone the changes so all points are included, and then decisions can be made on the strength of a full debate. 81.131.64.241 ( talk) 22:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
hey, have no desire to get involved in this debate in a big way but for what another opinion is worth jleadermaynard is quite right on what i think is general opinion in the snooker world. nobody these days seriously compares joe davis and stephen hendry, their world titles are totally different. what's wrong with the current edit, saying he's the successful one in the modern game seems fine. dudesleeper, we base articles on each other all the time and we should - if all the other sports pages say one sort of thing and snooker doesn't, that's pretty misleading in my book. other sports indicate which of their players is considered most successful, snooker should too, its information that should be conveyed to people, especially if its got references. Just my views. 86.135.88.219 ( talk) 23:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your response to my question, Jleadermaynard. I think that the crux of your response is in your points #2 & 3:
2) While I think the criteria of success could be based upon the number of categories in which Hendry is dominant, I don't think that has to be the 'correct' criteria for my standpoint here to be valid,as the phrasing 'widely considered to be' makes the question more about opinion in the sport rather than whether my own personal argument is valid. I have sourced authorities to back it up... 3) If the criteria of success is the problem, this is a problem for any sport we could think of. But on wikipedia the kind of comment I am suggesting has been applied to a plethora of sporting figures...
I have two comments on your reply:
Do you agree on these two points? What do others think? Sunray ( talk) 00:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Very briefly to respond to WalterMitty - your points ignore the responses I've already given to these arguments. I have provided a criteria of success above (a dozen records held by Hendry is not equivalent to one record held by Davis or another individual player), I just don't think its the central point. And what constitutes success is only opinionated in the way that the vast majority of the meanings underpinning facts on wikipedia can be disputed and so rest upon some kind of belief - that doesn't make them opinionated (as in 'non-cognitive') in the way required to exclude them from encyclopaedic style. Again, I don't see why the compromise outlined above is unreasonable. Jleadermaynard ( talk) 01:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
First of all, a 6 month ban is not justified in any respects. If you check the edits I made after I received the warning about removing sources you will see I amended the article to alter the wording but left the sources in. Gwernal actually banned me on a false pretext. A 6 month ban is completely unreasonable so it won't be honoured. If the wiki community want to make a decision 'against' me rather on what is in the best interest of the article so be it.
The records that count are: world championships (Joe Davis); pro titles (Steve Davis); ranking titles (Hendry); these are the three criteria that separate winners from losers. Only titles can provide criteria for a player's success, after all winning is the goal! Prize money can be considered like in Pool but would have to be adjusted for inflation. These are statements of fact: "Joe Davis is the most successful player in the history of the snooker world championships"; "Steve Davis is the most successful player in pro snooker tournaments"; "Stephen Hendry is the most successful player on the snooker ranking circuit"; These are not opinions but statements of fact. You cannot dispute these because there are hard stats backing them up. To follow jleadermaynard's reasoning we have to discriminate between criteria. Seriously, when one player has won the MOST PROFESSIONAL TOURNAMENTS or the MOST WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS how can you seriously select another player to be the definitive "greatest"?
It's as clear as day that jleadermaynard is trying to introduce fan bias into the article. It's not like Dudesleeper or myself are arguing that Hendry should be precluded from consideration as the greatest, we are just trying to avert a wording that precludes other players that have a legimate claim to the article. WalterMitty ( talk) 02:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Should ti not be acknowledged that some of Davis' wins, especially in the UK championship were not ranking victories merely because of the ranking systme not including them, and yet they all were for Hendry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.254.1 ( talk) 10:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Why is Stephen Hendry added to this Category? He's not from Perth & Kinross, he's from Lothian. I know he lives just outside Auchterarder now but that doesn't change where he is from. Thoughts? Grievous Angel ( talk) 09:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
He was born in South Queensferry and moved to Edinburgh at a young age
I have never heard of any of the nicknames attributed to Hendry and it would seem that other suggestions have been removed without explanation. I would think for consistency that unless a name can backed by a citation than they are not included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loadedlumper ( talk • contribs) 19:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Hendrys nickname in snooker was indeed the Iceman during the 90's —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottishpokertour ( talk • contribs) 17:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
"In the next 3 professional tournaments (UK Championship, Masters and the Welsh Open), Hendry lost in the first round to Stephen Lee, Neil Robertson and Martin Gould respectivley. He found some form in China Open, beating Robert Milkins and Ricky Walden, only to lose in quater-final with Peter Ebdon, the future winner of the tournament."
Can someone run a spellcheck over respectivley and quater (sic), and perhaps rephrase the last couple of clauses? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.246.161 ( talk) 20:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I can't find Hendry's MBE in the London Gazette. Is there an editor more familiar with the subject who can provide the citation? Have searched for "Stephen" & "Hendry" and "Order of the British Empire from December 1990 to November 2012 at the London Gazette without a result.
Karl Stephens ( talk) 10:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
The New Year Honours List 1995 at the London Gazette record those appointed to To be Ordinary Members of the Civil Division of the said Most Excellent Order however Hendry does not appear as expected in the alphabetical list on page 19.
Karl Stephens ( talk) 11:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
No mention of the fact that he threatened to leave Scotland if the Scots voted in favour of Devolution, or that he apparently still lives here? It was widely publicised at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.125.67.44 ( talk) 14:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Does this really belong in the lead? I say it doesn't, it's recentism and hardly a very important fact about him. Finn Rindahl ( talk) 23:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
An anonymous editor is repeatedly adding that Hendry is "considered to be one of the greatest snooker players of all time" to the lead. While this is undoubtedly true, epithets should be attributed specifically to people who regard him in this manner per WP:FLOWERY and preferably not to snooker forums and blog comments on a BBC article per WP:BLOGS. I am not opposed to such claims being included in the article, but ultimately they are just opinions and need to be attributed to people qualified to make such assessments. Betty Logan ( talk) 22:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Stephen Hendry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Stephen Hendry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Stephen Hendry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Stephen Hendry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Hendry won 5 consecutive World Championships from 1992-1996, is that a record in the modern day, I know Joe Davis one more consecutive but he was not the modern day. Can someone verify this as I would like to add it if it is true. Amy foster ( talk) 16:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We should probably talk about this rather than getting into an edit war. Even to say he's "one of the most successful players in the modern era of snooker" is pushing it, but to state that he's actually the greatest is blatant puffery and a matter of opinion. OK, World Snooker made that claim in an article four years ago, but it is still only the opinion of a body of observers who all have their individual opinions. Hendry's success is clear and can be measured in terms of number of wins, career earnings, etc. But is he the greatest? People might look back in a few years and say that about O'Sullivan. But everyone's entitled to their opinion. Rodney Baggins ( talk) 12:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
It is clear that the disruptive behaviour of one editor has created an aversion to common sense and good practice. I am a snooker fan with great respect for both O’Sullivan and Hendry. I do not think it is appropriate to call either “the greatest” in their own right as other editors have attempted as their achievements are not directly comparable. Rather both should receive equal recognition and consistent language used to describe their achievements. I have no association with any other editors and to suggest that my intentions are not honourable is disrespectful. Please can we apply some common sense here to avoid ongoing edit wars between both pages. I have applied consistent language to that used in the O’Sullivan page. If you have objections please ensure you apply the same language between both pages. Thank you, Mark Barness MBarness1234 ( talk) 21:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Lee Vilenski: MBarness1234 ( talk) 21:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Betty Logan: . MBarness1234 ( talk) 21:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
There's a detailed interview in The Guardian [3] that we're not using yet, which not only summarizes his book but has some unique-to-that-publication material that is pertinent to how/why his pro snooker career came to an end. In it, he also actually dismisses the claim that he just had a case of "the yips", but rather was suffering a more serious set of problems, a general loss of focus and faith in his playing ability, and anger/embarrassment issues when losing to low-ranked younger pros. Even says his final maximum break was pretty much by accident. Lots of interesting stuff in there (albeit for use within WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:PRIMARYSOURCE limits). I'll leave it to regular editors of this page to decide what to integrate. Oh, and it also goes a little bit into his transition into pool (though I'm not certain whether they mean eight-ball or British style eightball pool / blackball, being an "ambassador" of the game in China. I'm not sure what that entails, in detail, though it's worth looking into further so we can update his article and lead and categorization as it pertains to pool. Hendry's not actually retired, he's just no longer competing in snooker on the pro circuit, while he is doing other cue-sports-related things instead. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Last month Mrloop removed Eve Muirhead's comments from the "status" section on the grounds that her views were not relevant. An anonymous editor subsequently restored the comment on the grounds that the views of different sportspeople are relevant.
I have no particular view on that, and you can make the case for either position. However, the comment was not particularly well integrated with the existing prose. Both O'Sullian and Bingham had essentially considered the same point earlier in the paragraph, so I simply relocated Muirhead's comment to alongside O'Sullivan's and Bingham's, and tidied up the reference (which was not correctly formatted).
The editor subsequently reverted my edit with the immature edit summary accusing me of "downplaying" Hendry's "achievement". I think an objective appraisal of my edit would indeed agree that this is nonsense. Here are the three competing versions:
O'Sullivan himself has dismissed the suggestion that he is the greatest player and believes that a player must equal Hendry's haul of seven world titles to be regarded in this capacity. [1] Former world champion Stuart Bingham also takes a statistical view of the question, stating that O'Sullivan is the "best player to pick up a cue" but Hendry's record of seven world titles settles the debate as to who the greatest player is. [2] Desmond Kane of Eurosport has argued that if it were purely a statistical question then Joe Davis's fifteen world championships would settle the issue, that there is no real difference between the "greatest" and the "best", and that O'Sullivan has played snooker to a higher standard than anyone. [3] However, the Olympian Eve Muirhead considers the status of the World Snooker Championship as snooker's most prestigious tournament and Hendry's modern-era record settles Hendry's position as the greatest ever snooker player. [4]
O'Sullivan himself has dismissed the suggestion that he is the greatest player and believes that a player must equal Hendry's haul of seven world titles to be regarded in this capacity. [5] Former world champion Stuart Bingham also takes a statistical view of the question, stating that O'Sullivan is the "best player to pick up a cue" but Hendry's record of seven world titles settles the debate as to who the greatest player is. [6] Likewise, former curling world champion Eve Muirhead considers the prestige of the World Championship as snooker's most prestigious tournament and Hendry's modern-era record as decisive in determining Hendry's position as the greatest ever snooker player. [7] However, Desmond Kane of Eurosport has argued that if it were purely a statistical question then Joe Davis's fifteen world championships would settle the issue, that there is no real difference between the "greatest" and the "best", and that O'Sullivan has played snooker to a higher standard than anyone. [8]
O'Sullivan himself has dismissed the suggestion that he is the greatest player and believes that a player must equal Hendry's haul of seven world titles to be regarded in this capacity. [9] Former world champion Stuart Bingham also takes a statistical view of the question, stating that O'Sullivan is the "best player to pick up a cue" but Hendry's record of seven world titles settles the debate as to who the greatest player is. [10] Desmond Kane of Eurosport has argued that if it were purely a statistical question then Joe Davis's fifteen world championships would settle the issue, that there is no real difference between the "greatest" and the "best", and that O'Sullivan has played snooker to a higher standard than anyone. [11]
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (
link)
I have a personal preference but I can live with any version. Can we get a quick straw poll please and settle this issue quickly. Betty Logan ( talk) 18:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
I’m not in favour of including Muirhead’s or Kane’s comments. The points about Muirhead have been made and I think the same can be said for Kane - he is not particularly well known in the world of snooker and his views don’t hold much more weight than anyone else, including Muirhead’s. Views from professional snooker players carry more weight. This section is also on the long side. I’d suggest ending the section on Bingham’s comment and removing Muirhead’s and Kane’s comments. This should also hopefully remove the tension from IP about positioning. Sportismygame ( talk) 20:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Betty Logan: It is me, the IP who made the edit. I disagree with Nigel, Lee, Sportismyname, and you. There are some absolutely nobodies who are referenced there like Desmond Kane. Who is that!? He doesn’t even have a Wikipedia page. Eve Muirhead is a professional athlete. She understands the importance of the big events. Like the Olympics and in snooker’s case the World Championship. Get rid of her reference and it’s just a one-sided ramble. And FYI - you were the one who was trying to edit war until I highlighted the importance of talking it through. (IP Guy) 92.233.89.74 ( talk) 22:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, it’s me. The IP guy! I have decided to make an account as it makes contributing to this page easier. You will see I have edited the status part of the Stephen Hendry page. Having reflected on this, whilst not wanting to drop it, I can live without the Eve Muirhead comment in the interests of finding a solution. However taking it away leads to a rather anti-Hendry and pro-O’Sullivan position. I’ve therefore made an amendment to remove the Eve Muirhead line and reordered the content of the status section. I think we should get rid of the Demond Kane comment (who is a bit of a nobody) but can live with it in the interest of moving on if the ordering I have put forward works for others. Hope this is a satisfactory solution. MrLogan666 ( talk) 14:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I am highly sceptical of Betty Logan’s approach, which seems to be pushing a pro-O’Sullivan POV. In any case, I won’t engage in an edit war. I think the Desmond Kane comment merits removal so will raise a separate discussion about that. MrLogan666 ( talk) 07:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
A comment from Eve Muirhead was recently removed from the Status section. The consensus for this was found primarily on the basis that it was from someone who is not a snooker professional. Following the same logic, I believe the comment from Desmond Kane should also be removed. This is on the basis that he is a bit of an unknown source (e.g. doesn’t even have his own Wikipedia page) and is not a former player. I concur with the view of Nigej, stated in the Muirhead discussion, that “The only ones qualified to pass comment are probably fellow professionals.” I would like to follow this approach and remove the Desmond Kane comment. I think this logic should also be applied to any future additions to this section of the page, otherwise it risks becoming unwieldily with comments from relative unknowns.
In further support of this, I would add that the section is on the long side, is rather pro-O’Sullivan and is not particularly neutral, and because of this is likely to be susceptible to edit wars.
Please can I get a canvas of views on my proposal to remove the Desmond Kane comment and hopefully find a consensus? MrLogan666 ( talk) 07:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I can understand those points but would argue if we keep the reference then we are looking at a rather biased pro-O’Sullivan section. Furthermore, we can’t add every point of view on this issue as there are hundreds and this section would become unwieldy. I would question why Desmond Kane should feature given there are much better known sources who could be added to the mix. Therefore, in the interests of finding some balance to the narrative and to make this section manageable, I suggest the Desmond Kane comment should go. MrLogan666 ( talk) 10:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
My point is that there are more pro-O’Sullivan opinions than pro-Hendry, thereby lacking balance and overall neutrality. MrLogan666 ( talk) 12:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I think Desmond Kane is probably a better source than Eve Muirhead but it can be reasonably argued either way whether his opinion is relevant enough to sit alongside professional snooker players. However I agree the section is slightly lacking in balance if the Desmond Kane opinion is retained. To address this, you could add another comment. As Ronnie’s views have been covered, it would probably merit adding in something from the man himself. Sportismygame ( talk) 13:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I’m still against the Desmond Kane comment but will work with Sportismyname’s suggestion in the interest of trying to find a solution. MrLogan666 ( talk) 13:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I don’t think that Desmond Kane’s opinion is completely irrelevant, just that there are better sources.
In any case, I’ve added a comment from Hendry which I think adds value and overall a bit of balance to this section. We now have comments from Ronnie, Hendry, other players, and a snooker commentator. A good mix. I agree the section could do with a bit of an overhaul but hope people are happy with this in the meantime, that we have consensus, and can move on. Thoughts? MrLogan666 ( talk) 21:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
The following text was removed as "unsourced". I find this curious. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 14:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
References
I've been bold and taken a stab at re-writing this section. The World Snooker reference was out of date. As O'Sullivan is still playing, quotes from 15 years ago are not much use. -- hippo43 ( talk) 00:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
As mentioned in the main page, there is a live discussion already on this issue in the talk page under the section of ‘Desmond Kane Comment and Balance of Status Section’. As it’s a live discussion, please contribute to that and even state your suggested changes in the talk pages rather than making wholesale changes to the main page. MrLogan666 ( talk) 07:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Given the above, further comments shouldn’t be added to this section of the talk page. MrLogan666 ( talk) 07:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Have another look - the section of the talk page is entitled ‘Desmond Kane Comment and Balance of Status Section’. The discussion is focused on the Desmond Kane comment and the whole status section generally. The discussion you have raised is therefore duplicating on an existing live discussion so please raise your comments under the aforementioned section. Just to note that I am not totally against your proposed changes (subject to some small tweaks) but we need to find consensus before making changes to long-standing content. MrLogan666 ( talk) 15:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC) Mr Logan, if you are so keen to discuss something, why aren't you discussing it? And why you keep adding a source that is out of date and doesn't say what it used to say? -- hippo43 ( talk) 16:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
I’ve raised 5 comments in the section of the talk page mentioned. If you wish to add to that discussion then please do so. MrLogan666 ( talk) 17:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Not sure there is a benefit to having a separate section in this talk page on the same topic but in the interests of moving things along, here it goes.
I was generally in favour of your previous edit of the status section as you rightly highlighted the sources were dated. The section was also too long. I’d be happy to go with what you suggested, subject to a minor tweak to remove the retirement point. This is because it suggests the view of Hendry being the ‘greatest’ was only held at the time of his retirement but not at any time before or after. A new new source/sources will also be needed for the first reference:
“Hendry's achievements led many to consider him the greatest snooker player ever.[48] More recently, this has been challenged by Ronnie O'Sullivan's continued success, and some commentators consider O'Sullivan to have surpassed Hendry.[49][50][51][52]” MrLogan666 ( talk) 20:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Hippo43: Your thoughts would be appreciated. MrLogan666 ( talk) 17:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
some commentators consider O'Sullivan to have surpassed Hendry.doesn't really cover the deal at all. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 17:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Advanced apologies if this isn't in the correct part of this Talk, however, in my opinion I'd question as to whether we should have a 'Status' section at all for both Hendry and Ronnie O'Sullivan. There isn't one for Joe Davis who, prior to Steve Davis' dominance of the game in the 80's, was universally regarded as the greatest ever, nor for Steve Davis who, during his dominance of the game was seen as the only 'challenger' to Joe Davis' 'greatest ever' tag. How do you consider someone as 'the greatest'? I would say it's purely a subjective matter of opinion. I also think the section on this page is too long - how many past or current players do we source quotes from? Do we list them all? If the consensus is that there should be a 'greatest' status section then I actually prefer the text from MrLogan666 above. Maybe consideration needs to be made as to having a 'Greatest Snooker Player' article in it's own right. Steveflan ( talk) 11:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree completely with the above two comments. Better to remove these sections completely. They're generally not encyclopedic, just listing a seemingly random selection of other people's opinions. Nigej ( talk) 20:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
I think there should be a status section given how important the GOAT debate is to snooker. The current wording is too long for me and I like the brevity of what MrLogan666 has stated as it removes the need for constant flipping between different views. Sportismygame ( talk) 18:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
The lead section mentions Hendry's records within the modern era but doesn't define what the "modern era" is. When did it begin? -- Jameboy ( talk) 13:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
I distinctly remember Clive Everton in commentary (many, many years ago!) describing how Stephen Hendry attempted to win all ranking tournaments in the 1990-91 season (and subsequently suffered from exhaustion, contributing to the Crucible Curse). However, this alleged plan is not mentioned in this article or in the article on that season. Are there any references for this? Is it even true? Clearly he did win the first four ranking tournaments, and his streak was broken by Jimmy White in the final of the 1991 Classic. But then, Hendry was actually pretty good :-) and this may not have been a part of any premeditated plan. KarlFrei ( talk) 07:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Just want to know if the wiki snooker community is considering making a separate section/chart to list snooker players Senior Tour titles count as a whole new category instead of the current practice of listing it under the current 'Non-ranking titles'. I cannot see what justifies the recently finished, single-framed final match tournament - Mr Vegas Seniors 900 tournament being listed in the same category as The Masters or the Champion of Champions or Shanghai Masters etc., they are completely different in importance and difficulties and should not belong in the same category. Even listing World Seniors Championship title alongside The Masters or the Champion of Champions is unfitting. Obviously they are tremendously different in importance, some may argue they would trade dozens and dozens Senior titles to just one Masters. Having a separate category would make it easier for new fans of the sport to recognize the differences in these tournaments and grasp the weight of the achievements of the players. 2605:52C0:1001:260:E000:68FF:FEFE:D3BC ( talk) 04:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)