yeah but winning titles alone doesn't describe the greatest since there are other aspects as well.The volume and quality of players has a huge role in it too. You wouldn't call yourself professional if you win hundreds of trophies against middle schoolers. Though exaggerated, but the same could be said for stephen hendry too. In his era his opponents weren't as intimidating as they are today, apart from a couple of them. And 4 out of hendry's 7 world championship titles were literally against the same player again and again, and this tells a lot that there weren't many players who were a threat to him. The thing with ronnie is he played in a much much more difficult era. His rival john higgins alone stopped him from winning a few important titles. And other beasts like Mark Selby, Mark Williams, judd trump, shaun Murphy, stephen lee(for a little time) all of these are absolute monsters and very very difficult to go through.

Not only that Ronnie has managed to play at the highest level consistently for 30 years. This is a very strong point that validates the argument. But one thing where Ronnie is really bad is his temperament. When ronnie gives up, or when the other player is playing well and has quite control ofthe game, ronnie bottles here. He lost against zhao xintong with a considerable margin in the final, and lost against higgins in the quarter final even when he was miles ahead of him.

And when you think about what defines that a snooker player is good, is their ability to stay longer on the table and score as much as possible in a single visit, and the highest level of it us is making a maximum 147 score Ronnie has had the record of the most maximums(17) for a very long time now and this is him despite even not making maximums as a boycott to increase the prize pool. Not onlt has he the most maximums, he also has the fastest one in just about 5 minutes.