Let's Talk Squash - SUSPENDED

wasted24/7 · Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 2:57 am Post subject:

I don't think Barrington and Hunt are that great because of their reliance on an extreme fitness level. All great players need amazing fitness but it seems that those two players had to be extremely fit to win. But I've never seen them play so maybe they were as equally great shotmakers. Doubt it though, as everyone just talks about their fitness.

Ramy is probably as good as Power and Nicol were. When he is 'on', noone can beat him. Were Power and Nicol that good at the same age as Ramy? #2 in the world now, surely #1 before the year's end, and capable of demolishing opponents?

Jansher is my pick for the greatest player.

wasted24/7 · Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 3:08 am Post subject:

Flash · Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 6:00 am Post subject:

Barrington and Hunt had to rely on fitness more than todays players due to the way the game was played, and this was influenced, to some degree, by the equipment available at the time. I don't care how good you are, shot making and touch is much easier with todays raquets than it was with the wooden, small headed variety that Hunt and Barrington used. Thus the game was played up and down the walls to a much larger extent and the games went considerably longer. Then there's the changes to scoring systems and the introduction of all glass courts to consider as well.

wasted24/7 · Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 6:25 am Post subject:

Ok, that's why I said that I'd never seen them play and had just heard about their incredible fitness.

But I've played with those old wooden, small-headed racquets, making a touch shot isn't as hard as your making it out to be. My high school for some reason bought several hundred of them even though they were obsolete at the time. I'm guessing there was a great deal there! Why pay more for 50 good racquets when you can get 400 wooden for the same price. Rolling Eyes

And it wasn't even that hard to play with them once you get used to them. Sure it was more tiring, but as for quality of shots....hmmm. So I'm not into that 'its because of the equipment argument'. Wouldn't inferior equipment really make you play a smarter more strategic game?

Anyways, its basically Jansher Khan that is considered the best. Even Power and Nicol are quoted as saying that. Even just watching Jansher its obvious, he never looks under pressure that much.

Not to say the other contenders aren't close, but I think Jansher Khan has the title.

doubledot · Contributor Joined: 08 Aug 2007 Posts: 11 Location: vienna

no doubt - it was jahangir!
i watch the game since 1982 - and there was a lot of outstanding players in this time.
but no one was outstanding like jahangir!
unbeaten for more than 6 years.
the longst squashmatch all time (against gamal awad)
10 british open.
he can win his matches on fitness or on racketskill.
and his backhand-volley is stil the perfect hit!

bendi36 · Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:10 am Post subject:

It was only 5 years double dot. And the wooden rackets are much tougher even after you get used to them.
_________________
If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is, infinite

nmc8 · Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 5:11 pm Post subject:

I have voted in this poll and voted for Jansher, but I am now going to contrdict myself by saying that squash has changed so much over the years as the demands to make it a media friendly game have taken over, that it is hard to really know as the conditions under which a lot of the players played are vastly different however my gut reaction is that of all the players Jansher is the one that could and would be dominant whenever he played.

nmc8

bendi36 · Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:21 pm Post subject:

would jansher have beaten ramy?
_________________
If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is, infinite

Z · Prolific Contributor Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 85

Anyone put up against him, Jansher had an answer to and u r forgetting one important factor. Jansher didn't play or was dominant in the 'wooden racquet' era. When he showed up on the scene and beat everyone (including Jahangir multiple times) they were using graphite racquets. From 1993 onwards, Jansher was using a Pro Kennex racquet weighed in at 150 gms, so there is not much difference in weight there compared even to today's equipment (David Palmer still uses a Head 160) and then Jansher switched over to Head in late 1995 and that racquet was weighed in at 120 gms, which is still one of the lightest if not the lightest racquet on the market. The lower tin was introduced in all major tournaments in 1988 and was introduced to the Brtish open in 1995 (along with the PAR scoring to 15 - although since 1988 onwards every other major tournament including the world open was PAR scoring plus lower tin).

In 1995, Jansher entered and won seven super series events. In each n every one of those events, in the final he managed to dispatch his opponent off court in under 42 minutes (which includes the World Open and the British Open finals - and this is with the PAR to 15, had it been to 11, the readings would've been even scarier), this in itself is a record. I was just watching Jansher play the 1995 British Open final against Peter Marshall and he absolutely destroyed him with a scoreline of 15-4, 15-4, 15-5 under 40 minutes and Marshall was ranked No.2 in the world at that time, superior to everyone else in the field and was playing his seventh consecutive super series final against Jansher (having won none of them). That was true dominance. Another example is that right after this event, the next super series title was the tournament of champions and Marshall had bowed out due to injury (this is when he was struck with chronic fatigue syndrome) and Rodney Eyles made it to the final (he was also the defending champion since Jansher didn't enter the TOC of 94 citing a back-injury) and was again murdered by Jansher 3-0 in 27 minutes, again keep in mind that is PAR to 15, had it been 11, it would've been 20 minutes. Important to note that at that time, such short match times were not the norm that they've become today. Jansher pioneered the path, which today's players are treading. Ramy though being a great talent, is not in the class of Jansher (atleast not yet so Ramy fans can relax n not trying n disect my arguments left right n centre), he needs to develop more patience to go with his explosiveness and needs to find different ways of handling his game as well. He changes the pace well, but doesn't have the range of pace as Jansher did and he needs to work on that cuz that certainly seems to be his strong point.

There is not even a shadow of a doubt in my mind and in many a squash observers' minds that Jansher was the greatest player to play the game. It becomes even more obvious if u view his matches from his earlier days when he was just renouned for his amazing movement and was known not to have any attack in his game, except for maybe a decent counter-attack and then u watch his matches from 1992 onwards and u realize how much he's worked on his game to generate that deadly attack in his game, which then made him famous for being the most accurate shotmaker in the game. He knew that was important to maintain his supremacy over his opponents and he did watever was necessary to keep him up there. That's wat champions do, that's wat dominators do.

P.S: Ramy needs to lose weight, he's not fat or anything, but the kind of build he has, works against his explosive movement and people like Gaultier n Shabana can take him down in a long/er match. The extra weight is also hurting his foot with which he has had problems. Being a champion is also about remaining injury free for as long as possible so that u can perform consistently at the highest of levels day in day out and that's something Ramy needs to look into as well, if he wants to dominate the sport like either of the Khans/Barringtons/Hunts.

bendi36 · Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 10:30 am Post subject:

What about David Palmer? He is strong and muscular too and he can be like a cat and he is like the Leyton Hewitt of squash with his 5th game win record. Ramy needs to be powerful for the explosive movement and power is a combo of both speed and strength. Strength comes from your muscles so he needs to be slightly bigger than just lean.
_________________
If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is, infinite

Z · Prolific Contributor Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 85

DP has a much leaner frame than RA, if RA can keep himself the way DP is, we've got zero problems

seshadri · Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 2:53 pm Post subject:

Summary of Jahangir v/s Jansher
Matches Games Points
JANSHER 19 74 1,426
JAHANGIR 18 79 1,459

Looks like 6 of one ,and half-a-dozen of the other.
I've not really watched any matches of Jahangir [anyone know where they can be downloaded?], so I can't say who looked better
_________________
Before I speak, I have something important to say- Groucho Marx

Z · Prolific Contributor Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 85

I have seen them both beat each other 3-1 n 3-0 on a number of occassions (old tapes from dad's collection), basically who ever was fitter going into the match, would eventually win it. Jahangir attacked more than Jansher and hit the ball real hard (ala Brett Martin/John White) while Jansher was this sublime moving machine on the court, absolutely nothing out of reach and when Jahangir was fit n determined, there was no way past him. Later in Jahangir's career though Jansher had developed far too much as a shotmaker and Jahangir haggered by slightly older age n a little less fit, had to succumb to Jansher on many grounds in their latest meetings. More importantly Jahangir used to peak for the British Open most importantly cuz he cherished that title more than anything else and u could see that in his British Open finals, that he was so focussed n determined to not let go, while Jansher was in supreme form throughout the year and that would make a difference when he would reach the final of the British Open only to lose to Jahangir who had taken the previous few months off the tour to solely train for the BO. That's a good summary of their head-to-head meetings...

jake38 · Heavy Contributor Joined: 02 Sep 2007 Posts: 29

I agree, nothing to choose between Jahangir and Jansher.
I think because there is alot more recent footage available Jansher's dominance is clearer in people's memory
and the younger generation wil unfortunately have no comprehension of Jahangir's level during the 80's.
One aspect about Jansher was that he occasionally had a off days and didn't try. Don't recall that with Jahangir. I remember Jansher playing Chris Robertson at the British Open back in the early 90's and he got stuffed 3-0 in round 2 or 3.

All in all, the main problem in deciding is that Jahangir dominated during a very constant time- higher tin and 9 scoring.
Janasher dominated when the game was in transition so its hard to get a fair comparison.
I just remember for so many years Jahangir was the best and he still remained my top choice over the years but I have to agree now that Jansher's adaptability along with possibly a stronger level of competition puts him on a par.

One thing most agree, (those that have been observing squash,26 years in my case)is that no player, and there are some phenominally successful players to choose from, other than these two come into the reckoning.

Z · Prolific Contributor Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 85

Chris Robertson was a great player in his own right and managed to get Jahangir in the semi-final of the 1990 Stretch challenge 3-0 as well. I agree with Jahangir's dominance with the 9 point scoring and higher tin but also keep in mind that Jansher is the only player to have come back from 2-0 down to Jahangir and win the match with the 9 point scoring n higher tin on not just one but at least two PSA ranking matches. Needless to say to beat Jahangir like that took some work and this was not when Jahangir was about to retire cuz he retired in 1993 and these two matches were played in 1987 n 1988 (Jahangir was 24 n Jansher was 18 years of age), so u can't say that Jahangir was older or past his peak, cuz Jahangir kept winning the BO consecutively till 1991 and they maintained the higher tin n 9 point scoring system till 1994. The fact that Jansher dominated on both conditions is a testament to his greatness and that's one of the many reasons I hold him in a higher regard than Jahangir as a player. Both are super nice people off the court, had the honor of knowing them both personally, and ofcourse as players they're exceptional in every sense of the word...

bendi36 · Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 11:36 pm Post subject:

Speaking of which, when he came into work the other day I remembered Craig Rowland beat Jansher too and then lost some final to Jon Power. I've got the matches downloaded.
_________________
If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is, infinite

seshadri · Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 12:01 am Post subject:

In my opinion, the only really valid yardstick for comparing players, is the respect they commanded from their peers. From that perspective, I would rank Jahangir, Jansher and Peter Nicol as the 3 best [in no particular order]. Each of them felt from within that they could beat any opponent; its that mental toughness that separates the merely great from the legends. I'm probably being unfair to Hunt amd Jonah Barrington, having seen nothing of them at all.
_________________
Before I speak, I have something important to say- Groucho Marx

Z · Prolific Contributor Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 85

It's also interesting to note that all of these three players u mentioned seshadri were renowned for exemplery behavior on court. Alot of respect came off of that as well i'm sure. About the loss to Craig Rowland, then it was basically an off day for Jansher I'm sure, suffice to say it never happened again and that was the TOC of 1996 and Power's first major title.

bendi36 · Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:45 am Post subject:

Z · Prolific Contributor Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 85

Instantly the first two people that come to mind who nagged these great players were Rodney Eyles and Jonathon Power. They were so annoying to play, Rodney was extremely confrontational and gave u quite a few nudges n bruises on his way to the ball, about Power, well wat can I say, other than the fact that I marvel at Peter Nicol's mental calmness to not have taken his head out on a few occassions. So these people had quite a few reasons to get mad about n yet no one recalls them even getting a 'conduct warning' which speaks loads of their (specially) on court character... Ahmed Brada and Julian Bonetat of France along with Anthony Hill weren't exactly picnics either, so Jansher did well in keeping his cool with such people

doubledot · Contributor Joined: 08 Aug 2007 Posts: 11 Location: vienna

a few more things:
1. it´s a little bit a discussion who is the better soccer-player. pele or maradonna. or was it beckenbauer. or georgie best?
2. it´s a little bit unfair that nobody vote for geoff hunt. he is such a great player! 8 BO!
3. Whats about players like ahmed safwat or chris dittmar, quamar zaman?
3. in my oppinion the best player to watch was adrian davies - he had an unbelievable touch. he was such a crazy guy and there was always some unexpected things happend.
there was a lot of stories to tell about him. on and off court!

bendi36 · Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 12:07 pm Post subject:

Well go post that in non squash stuff cos Soccer is boring unless it's the world cup. And yes those ppl bugged the best but the best 3 still never lost. Why get mad when your gonna keep your no 1 ranking?
_________________
If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is, infinite

GOB · Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:06 pm Post subject:

Z · Prolific Contributor Joined: 15 Aug 2007 Posts: 85

Sure some would say that, but then Rodney had the same problem with Peter Nicol n Chris Walker as well, now was everyone blocking his path or was he just playing the referee more than other players? something to think about

GOB · Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 2:17 am Post subject: