stratton Posted August 23, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 23, 2015 I would rather watch Gollob all day long then Pedersen or Hancock but he wasnt the better rider. I would rather have watched Mark Loram or Joe Screen in their heyday then most riders Again you are getting confused it is just your Humble OPINION, i am not saying i am right just my opinion what you are saying seems pretty arrogant.And when you are comparing riders where does fact come into it? Crump/Olsen both won three titles as Pedersen did for me those two are light years ahead of Pedersen.But again it is only my OPINION and my opinion counts for nothing as does yours it is all down to the individual who they prefer.I Would rather have watched Jimmy White than Steve Davis at Snooker but Davis was by far the overall better player .A poor example Davis was twice the player White ever was.Statistics don't lie, yes Hancock & Pedersen have achieved far more than Gollob. But Gollob in his prime & me as a paying spectator, i know who i would rather watch! I think "Sommelier"we all know Gollob was exciting but because he only won one title does not mean he is a lesser to Pedersen/Hancock. Far from it myself i don't go by the roll of honour remember there are endless GREAT riders who never won a title.In the same era give and take a few years Ricko,Pedersen, Crump,Hancock,Gollob, out of that group Hancock and Pedersen are the bottom two for me again only my OPINION not FACT.!!!Sorry Sidney but you can't back up Gollob was better than the other 2. You seem transfixed about ability on a bike rather than actual achievement. As I said Gollob great to watch but as good as the other 2 not in my mind. Reminds me of how brilliant Jimmy White was to watch at snooker but yet he was never as good as Steve Davis just check the record booksIf you go by achievements are you saying that Adams ,Sigalos,Duggan,Warren, a few examples were not as good as some of the winners because they never won a title.? And please i watch snooker and White was never EVER as good as Davis, Davis is in the top three players ever in history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orion Posted August 23, 2015 Report Share Posted August 23, 2015 (edited) Again you are getting confused it is just your Humble OPINION, i am not saying i am right just my opinion what you are saying seems pretty arrogant.And when you are comparing riders where does fact come into it? Crump/Olsen both won three titles as Pedersen did for me those two are light years ahead of Pedersen.But again it is only my OPINION and my opinion counts for nothing as does yours it is all down to the individual who they prefer. A poor example Davis was twice the player White ever was. I think "Sommelier"we all know Gollob was exciting but because he only won one title does not mean he is a lesser to Pedersen/Hancock. Far from it myself i don't go by the roll of honour remember there are endless GREAT riders who never won a title.In the same era give and take a few years Ricko,Pedersen, Crump,Hancock,Gollob, out of that group Hancock and Pedersen are the bottom two for me again only my OPINION not FACT.!!! If you go by achievements are you saying that Adams ,Sigalos,Duggan,Warren, a few examples were not as good as some of the winners because they never won a title.? And please i watch snooker and White was never EVER as good as Davis, Davis is in the top three players ever in history. Who said Davis was not better than white ? not sure what been reading but not one person has said that ..they said that White was better to watch but not as good as Davis . It's easy to compare the 3 riders we talking about as rode in the same era under the same fair format ...and over that time Hancock and Pedersen were better than Gollob and Adams for that matter the facts show that . Edited August 23, 2015 by orion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiheke1 Posted August 24, 2015 Report Share Posted August 24, 2015 Sorry Sidney but you can't back up Gollob was better than the other 2. You seem transfixed about ability on a bike rather than actual achievement. As I said Gollob great to watch but as good as the other 2 not in my mind. Reminds me of how brilliant Jimmy White was to watch at snooker but yet he was never as good as Steve Davis just check the record books tbf to Sid, the discussion is who was better, not who achieved the most. Most would base who was better primarily on achievements, but its reasonable to take other aspects into account, and to take achievements beyond individual world titles into account. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratton Posted August 24, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 24, 2015 Who said Davis was not better than white ? not sure what been reading but not one person has said that ..they said that White was better to watch but not as good as Davis . It's easy to compare the 3 riders we talking about as rode in the same era under the same fair format ...and over that time Hancock and Pedersen were better than Gollob and Adams for that matter the facts show that . No we all know White was mega talented and god he did deserve to win a WC ,but you could not put him on the same level over a period as Davis.Davis for me is there with three other greats J.Davis,Ronnie,Hendry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.