Talk:Stephen Hendry

Greatest ever

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 The World Snooker reference was out of date.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)

This discussion here isn't about the Desmond Kane quote. It's about the whole section.

Please stop adding the incorrect World Snooker quote. It no longer says that Hendry is considered the greatest ever, so if we want to include that we need another source. --hippo43 (talk) 13:29, 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 And why you keep adding a source that is out of date and doesn't say what it used to say?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)

I've discussed it in this section. Reply, don't reply, it's your choice, but please stop playing games. --hippo43 (talk) 18:27, 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)

I agree with the text - many did/do consider Hendry the greatest player - but I don't think that source is enough to support it here. We need to find other sources which say it. For me, secondary sources which say he was considered the greatest are preferable to individual opinions, often mentioned in other contexts. When I have some time I will try to find more. --hippo43 (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think the section is too long. It's an important part of his career. If anything, the discussion could be more nuanced. We also shouldn't be using WP:CITEKILL. This section should probably be written more like a reception section, outlining the specific opinions. The line: 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)

So what do you suggest? I think a load of quotes from players is a problem - almost everyone has commented on this at some point, and most of the quotes we have are well out of date.

One reason for having a line like "some commentators consider O'Sullivan to have surpassed Hendry" (or whatever text we agree) is because this is the article about Hendry, not O'Sullivan or anyone else. //// Hippo43 (talk) 04:35, 21 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'm against such sections, such is the tendency to just include (a) journalistic opinion(s) as (a) reference(s). Just because someone is paid to give their opinion, doesn't make it more valid than the layman. - Seasider53 (talk) 12:50, 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)

Modern era

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)

As it's a big undertaking, I've not got round to this one yet... Modern era is 1969 onwards, but does need an explaination. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

It's jargon, and probably should be added to Glossary of cue sports terms so that it can be linked to. Betty Logan (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. Looks like there is a citation for this at 1969 World Snooker Championship (last sentence of Background section) but it's behind a paywall so I can't verify it. --Jameboy (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

1990 plan to win all ranking tournaments in the season?

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)

Having a separate 'Seniors tour titles' section for snooker players

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)

Invitational exhibition '900' events

It shouldn’t be up to me to open discussion on this Talk Page – as it’s ~2026-59263-2 who wishes to add a contentious title to the list of honours on Stephen Hendry’s page.

The onus should be on the editor wishing to make the change!

Therefore, I’m (not reverting) but merely restoring the accepted version, prior to the ‘edit-war’…

Although not relevant to this discussion, I feel that non-registered, proxy editors hold far too big a say in editorial content – they have the advantage of using multiple IP addresses and can revert to their ‘agenda’ innumerable times without falling foul of the ‘edit war’ ruling.

Any editor’s contentious edit (whether a guest or not) should NOT remain as the settled consensus. Yes, it MAY be valid, but should not be the published version, until reviewed.

Meanwhile, the Snooker.org reference is NOT for this ‘event’.

This event consisted of variant non-snooker rules, was invitational, and an exhibition played over one-frame, with oddities such as ball–in-hand, must hit a cushion, shot-clock, place the cue-ball anywhere after a foul; and included Joe Johnson, Dennis Taylor and Tony Knowles as half the field.

Also, there’s no mention of his runner-up achievement on Jimmy white’s page, suggesting bias or a pro-Hendry 'agenda'. It can’t be one without the other.

Going down this 900 route is opening a whole world of trouble We (Wiki editors) either include all 900 events…or none at all. There can be no "cherry-picking".

I agree that Seniors snooker is sanctioned by the WPBSA and should have a place on players’ records – but the 900 gimmick is just that – a Jason Francis promotion – a TV event which is not traditional snooker.

I feel there needs to be a consensus reached by the snooker-editing community on whether 900 events should be included as non-ranking events.

A compromise would be a separate page for Snooker 900 events - it would be appropriate but I doubt anybody is motivated enough or cares to create one. But to integrate Seniors 900 events in the same category as The Masters and the Champion of Champions is frankly absurd!

Finally, the account wishing to post this 900 Snooker title is from (apparently) a first-time poster...a guest account. Those who are privy to access to Geolocations of IP addresses will, I’m sure, find this account to be in Ireland and likely linked to a banned troll. Woodlandscaley (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

This table also includes the recent Crucible Cup which is a snooker 900 rules event. Is this okay? Thanks. Canary757 (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the Crucible Cup, something being on different rules isn't that much of a problem. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:11, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Found the above in relation to the inclusion of 900 events

These snippets are from a wider conversation regarding the fact that qualifying event wins should not be put alongside Masters titles in the tournament wins charts which I don't think this temporary editor is in agreement with. The page where this discussion took place, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker, is the best place to start a debate on the inclusion of 900 events as they affect many, many pages, not just this one. Canary757 (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2026 (UTC)