Post a reply

Re: 1000 centuries...do you rate it?

Postby SnookerEd25

Minimum Break wrote:
Prop wrote:Does Barry Pinches count?


According to Wikipedia he has made 161 Centuries since turning pro in 1989.

At his current rate he will reach 1000 centuries early in 2207.


Oh, I’ll be dead then, so won’t be around to see it :sad:

Re: 1000 centuries...do you rate it?

Postby chengdufan

Minimum Break wrote:
Prop wrote:Does Barry Pinches count?


According to Wikipedia he has made 161 Centuries since turning pro in 1989.

At his current rate he will reach 1000 centuries early in 2207.

Assuming he's paired with Mark Allen around that time.

Re: 1000 centuries...do you rate it?

Postby HappyCamper

SnookerEd25 wrote:
Minimum Break wrote:
Prop wrote:Does Barry Pinches count?


According to Wikipedia he has made 161 Centuries since turning pro in 1989.

At his current rate he will reach 1000 centuries early in 2207.


Oh, I’ll be dead then, so won’t be around to see it :sad:


they have discovery plus in heaven.

Re: 1000 centuries...do you rate it?

Postby SnookerFan

HappyCamper wrote:
SnookerEd25 wrote:
Minimum Break wrote:
Prop wrote:Does Barry Pinches count?


According to Wikipedia he has made 161 Centuries since turning pro in 1989.

At his current rate he will reach 1000 centuries early in 2207.


Oh, I’ll be dead then, so won’t be around to see it :sad:


they have discovery plus in heaven.


They got Clive Everton to commentate on it now, too.

Re: 1000 centuries...do you rate it?

Postby Wildey

It's an achievement no doubt about that but in the Grand Scheme of things not that important

Re: 1000 centuries...do you rate it?

Postby Johnny Bravo

Granite wrote:So we've got 3 players in the millennium club of centuries now when it was just looking like 1 about a few weeks ago. John Higgins and Judd Trump both accomplished this feat in one week apart I think.

How high do you rate this accomplishment? The players rate it very highly just from their reactions.

It's an amazing achievement. It showcases ability and longevity. However, its greatness its a bit diluted by the fact that there are so many events now.

Granite wrote:There's more tournaments now but Judd has the highest century/frame ratio I think, followed by O'Sullivan and Higgins. Judd's big title haul doesn't reflect a 1000 centuries but speaks volumes on his scoring prowess.

Trump has played under the best conditions for longest compared to ROS and Higgins.
That, plus the fact that Trump is still young and in his prime is why his ratio is slightly better than ROS.
When he'll be just as old, Trump's ratio won't be as good.

Granite wrote:Robertson (951) is next in line followed by Selby (839), I don't see anyone else reaching it after those 2. Selby is 50/50.

Robertson is a certainty to get 1000.
With Selby, it depends on how long he keeps playing.

Re: 1000 centuries...do you rate it?

Postby Johnny Bravo

SnookerFan wrote:
TheRocket wrote:It's a good achievement. 1000 is a special number.

I know that century breaks are not everything but it's a sign of breakbuilding capability and the players who got there are all special players. I include Trump into that. Might not have an impressive CV so far at the Worlds or the TC events but he's still a serial winner who wins multiple titles every season.


The noteworthy thing for me, is how quickly Judd did it compared to the other two.

Though you do have to take into account how there was a period with far fewer tournaments, I guess.

Judd has played way way more frames compared to ROS and Higgins.

Re: 1000 centuries...do you rate it?

Postby Andre147

Johnny Bravo wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:
TheRocket wrote:It's a good achievement. 1000 is a special number.

I know that century breaks are not everything but it's a sign of breakbuilding capability and the players who got there are all special players. I include Trump into that. Might not have an impressive CV so far at the Worlds or the TC events but he's still a serial winner who wins multiple titles every season.


The noteworthy thing for me, is how quickly Judd did it compared to the other two.

Though you do have to take into account how there was a period with far fewer tournaments, I guess.

Judd has played way way more frames compared to ROS and Higgins.


He has played more frames because there is more than double the tournaments Hendry had in his career, and Ronnie for the 1st half of his career.

Be assured that if Ronnie had the same amount of tournaments back then, he would well be above 2000 century breaks lol

Re: 1000 centuries...do you rate it?

Postby gninnur karona

Andre147 wrote:
Johnny Bravo wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:
TheRocket wrote:It's a good achievement. 1000 is a special number.

I know that century breaks are not everything but it's a sign of breakbuilding capability and the players who got there are all special players. I include Trump into that. Might not have an impressive CV so far at the Worlds or the TC events but he's still a serial winner who wins multiple titles every season.


The noteworthy thing for me, is how quickly Judd did it compared to the other two.

Though you do have to take into account how there was a period with far fewer tournaments, I guess.

Judd has played way way more frames compared to ROS and Higgins.


He has played more frames because there is more than double the tournaments Hendry had in his career, and Ronnie for the 1st half of his career.

Be assured that if Ronnie had the same amount of tournaments back then, he would well be above 2000 century breaks lol


In the real world Judd Trump and Neil Robertson have a clearly superior century per frame strike rate than any other professional or ex-professional who has recorded multiple centuries.

Re: 1000 centuries...do you rate it?

Postby chengdufan

gninnur karona wrote:
Andre147 wrote:
Johnny Bravo wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:
TheRocket wrote:It's a good achievement. 1000 is a special number.

I know that century breaks are not everything but it's a sign of breakbuilding capability and the players who got there are all special players. I include Trump into that. Might not have an impressive CV so far at the Worlds or the TC events but he's still a serial winner who wins multiple titles every season.


The noteworthy thing for me, is how quickly Judd did it compared to the other two.

Though you do have to take into account how there was a period with far fewer tournaments, I guess.

Judd has played way way more frames compared to ROS and Higgins.


He has played more frames because there is more than double the tournaments Hendry had in his career, and Ronnie for the 1st half of his career.

Be assured that if Ronnie had the same amount of tournaments back then, he would well be above 2000 century breaks lol


In the real world Judd Trump and Neil Robertson have a clearly superior century per frame strike rate than any other professional or ex-professional who has recorded multiple centuries.

It isn't quite that simple though, as others have pointed out. If your peak was during a period where there are lots of tournaments and the table conditions more favourable, you'd be more likely to have a higher strike rate than someone playing in a long career. Quality of opponents is also a factor.

Re: 1000 centuries...do you rate it?

Postby TheRocket

ROS century per frame strike was actually slightly superior than Trumps and Robertson just a few years ago. He is almost 49 now and it went down over the last 3-4 years and it's still close to Judd and Robbos. Their numbers will get weaker too when they are at Ronnies age.

Re: 1000 centuries...do you rate it?

Postby Dragonfly

Williams went through a stage of missing shots on purpose/lack of interest once a frame was secured. Didn't see the point of playing for another few minutes just to rack up centuries. There is a certain logic to this. Once a player gets to 80 or so the frame is just dead time then.
With all the 147s these days centuries have become almost meaningless. Even 147 is commonplace. Wish we saw a 155

Re: 1000 centuries...do you rate it?

Postby Prop

Dragonfly wrote:Williams went through a stage of missing shots on purpose/lack of interest once a frame was secured. Didn't see the point of playing for another few minutes just to rack up centuries. There is a certain logic to this. Once a player gets to 80 or so the frame is just dead time then.
With all the 147s these days centuries have become almost meaningless. Even 147 is commonplace. Wish we saw a 155


Ironically Theppy has compiled a 155 on camera during practice.

Tbh the footage isn’t great. But here it is https://youtu.be/mv7SegsW5Tc?feature=shared

Re: 1000 centuries...do you rate it?

Postby D4P

Dragonfly wrote:With all the 147s these days centuries have become almost meaningless. Even 147 is commonplace. Wish we saw a 155


I'd like to see total clearances that start with 15 yellows or greens or browns or blues or pinks.

Re: 1000 centuries...do you rate it?

Postby badtemperedcyril

Centuries are far more frequent since Hearn took over for several reasons : -

- there is a tournament virtually every week so the most successful players will naturally get used to the conditions.

- the conditions are pretty constant — therefore, players with anything like a sound technique will score heavily.

[going back to previous era’s]

- balls are now lighter so the pack opens more easily.

- there is no nap on the table bed cloth so the pack opens more easily.

- there is no nap on the cushion cloth so the balls “slide” into the pocket at a favourable angle.

- there has been more undercut, or, “shoulder” on the pocket drop so the ball doesn’t have to get so far into the pocket to be accepted. I’m not certain this is the case now, possibly not.

The above meant that the overall strategy was altogether more conservative. Pot what you could, keep the pack tight, take no chances… the frames developed on a more fragmented way.
——————
Overall, this, I believe gives a partial explanation as to why big breaks are more frequent today.

Make no mistake, the current players are far superior technically but the players of yesteryear were every bit as talented and in most cases, just as skillful.

Re: 1000 centuries...do you rate it?

Postby Wildey

Andre147 wrote:
Johnny Bravo wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:
TheRocket wrote:It's a good achievement. 1000 is a special number.

I know that century breaks are not everything but it's a sign of breakbuilding capability and the players who got there are all special players. I include Trump into that. Might not have an impressive CV so far at the Worlds or the TC events but he's still a serial winner who wins multiple titles every season.


The noteworthy thing for me, is how quickly Judd did it compared to the other two.

Though you do have to take into account how there was a period with far fewer tournaments, I guess.

Judd has played way way more frames compared to ROS and Higgins.


He has played more frames because there is more than double the tournaments Hendry had in his career, and Ronnie for the 1st half of his career.

Be assured that if Ronnie had the same amount of tournaments back then, he would well be above 2000 century breaks lol

Not Sure about that tbh

Ronnie doesent play in everything Ronnie has played in 100 less tournaments than John Higgins

Re: 1000 centuries...do you rate it?

Postby Prop

badtemperedcyril wrote:Centuries are far more frequent since Hearn took over for several reasons : -

- there is a tournament virtually every week so the most successful players will naturally get used to the conditions.

- the conditions are pretty constant — therefore, players with anything like a sound technique will score heavily.

[going back to previous era’s]

- balls are now lighter so the pack opens more easily.

- there is no nap on the table bed cloth so the pack opens more easily.

- there is no nap on the cushion cloth so the balls “slide” into the pocket at a favourable angle.

- there has been more undercut, or, “shoulder” on the pocket drop so the ball doesn’t have to get so far into the pocket to be accepted. I’m not certain this is the case now, possibly not.

The above meant that the overall strategy was altogether more conservative. Pot what you could, keep the pack tight, take no chances… the frames developed on a more fragmented way.
——————
Overall, this, I believe gives a partial explanation as to why big breaks are more frequent today.

Make no mistake, the current players are far superior technically but the players of yesteryear were every bit as talented and in most cases, just as skillful.


Not entirely true.

Aramith 1G were in use in the professional game long before the Hearn era.

The cloths in use today are finer than in the past, but they still have a nap.

Pockets are not undercut on tournament tables, and haven’t been for decades. The fall of the slate is something else entirely, and has nothing to do with the undercut of the rubbers.

Balls sliding into pockets off cushions has nothing to do with nap.