Post a reply

Re: THIS IS JUDDNATION PART II

Postby D4P » 21 Oct 2020 Read

Dragonfly wrote:1 title in the masters, 1 title in the UK, and 1 world title puts him on a similar level to Murphy.


And Terry Griffiths

Re: THIS IS JUDDNATION PART II

Postby Ck147 » 21 Oct 2020 Read

Yeah, Judd still has some way to go before being considered a great, still can't believe he hasn't got more than 103 centuries in a season.

Re: THIS IS JUDDNATION PART II

Postby D4P » 21 Oct 2020 Read

Ck147 wrote:Yeah, Judd still has some way to go before being considered a great, still can't believe he hasn't got more than 103 centuries in a season.


He probably would have last season, if the COVID disruption hadn't happened

Re: THIS IS JUDDNATION PART II

Postby Ck147 » 22 Oct 2020 Read

D4P wrote:
Ck147 wrote:Yeah, Judd still has some way to go before being considered a great, still can't believe he hasn't got more than 103 centuries in a season.


He probably would have last season, if the COVID disruption hadn't happened

Always some excuse

Re: THIS IS JUDDNATION PART II

Postby Juddernaut88 » 22 Oct 2020 Read

Dragonfly wrote:1 title in the masters, 1 title in the UK, and 1 world title puts him on a similar level to Murphy.


Another way of looking at it is 18 ranking titles and he's level with Selby and Robertson and both have been pro longer than him. The whole "triple crown" wasn't even a thing until around 2011, this is just BBC trying to brainwash people into thinking Snooker is only about these events and the others don't matter which isn't the case at all!

Re: THIS IS JUDDNATION PART II

Postby Holden Chinaski » 22 Oct 2020 Read

Juddernaut88 wrote:
Dragonfly wrote:1 title in the masters, 1 title in the UK, and 1 world title puts him on a similar level to Murphy.


Another way of looking at it is 18 ranking titles and he's level with Selby and Robertson and both have been pro longer than him. The whole "triple crown" wasn't even a thing until around 2011, this is just BBC trying to brainwash people into thinking Snooker is only about these events and the others don't matter which isn't the case at all!

Hendry has said those 3 tournaments were always top priority for him, long before 2011. I'm sure most players agree with that. Ronnie has also said the triple crown record felt very important to him.

Re: THIS IS JUDDNATION PART II

Postby SnookerFan » 22 Oct 2020 Read

I think classifying World, Masters and UK as a big 3 is fine. That in itself doesn't bother me. The Crucible will always be the big one, for me.

But the BBC promoting them like these tournaments are the only things that matter bothers me. The way they talk about it being x amount of years since a player won a Triple Crown event makes it sound like all other events that player won are trivial.

Did Judd's 6 ranking events won last year mean nothing, because they weren't on the BBC? Should players only bother trying to win three events a year?

Are those three bigger? Probably. But that doesn't mean they're the only ones that count.

Re: THIS IS JUDDNATION PART II

Postby SnookerEd25 » 22 Oct 2020 Read

I agree SF. Their claims of Ding’s 2019 UK win being his first ‘major’ in 8yrs was insulting to one of the finest players of the modern era and completely disregard the nine rankers he’d won in that period.

Re: THIS IS JUDDNATION PART II

Postby HustleKing » 22 Oct 2020 Read

Juddernaut88 wrote:
Dragonfly wrote:1 title in the masters, 1 title in the UK, and 1 world title puts him on a similar level to Murphy.


Another way of looking at it is 18 ranking titles and he's level with Selby and Robertson and both have been pro longer than him. The whole "triple crown" wasn't even a thing until around 2011, this is just BBC trying to brainwash people into thinking Snooker is only about these events and the others don't matter which isn't the case at all!


As a big Robbo and Ding fan, I wholeheartedly agree with this statement ;-)

Re: THIS IS JUDDNATION PART II

Postby Dragonfly » 22 Oct 2020 Read

I get the whole thing about BBC bigging up their own events. Nevertheless they are big events. Obviously the worlds is the main event of any season. The Masters is contested by the elite players. So I do think that 1 win in those events is a poor return for a player of Trumps standard.

He does have time to improve this. But Robertson is not far off the same standard and 10 years after his world title he's got nowhere near another one.

Re: THIS IS JUDDNATION PART II

Postby SnookerFan » 22 Oct 2020 Read

Dan-cat wrote:You dont get remembered for winning the Gilbrator open. He needs more UKs, Worlds. Plenty of time though


I agree, to an extent.

If you've won loads of ranking events, but have no "big three wins", or no Crucible wins it's telling. Especially nowadays when there is a lot more ranking events out there to win. I think how many World Titles you have won does enter the discussion when discussing whether somebody is an All Time Great. (As opposed to simply being great.)

On the other hand, this isn't the same thing as saying that everything but the BBC events mean nothing. You can't expect the players to buck about and not try in tournaments until the UK/Masters/Worlds come round.

It's all subjective, as there's no set criteria for what makes an ATG. But I'm just saying, I hate this BBC idea that tournaments like the Home Nations, or the China events or whatever mean nothing.

Re: THIS IS JUDDNATION PART II

Postby SnookerEd25 » 22 Oct 2020 Read

I find it also ironic that they have bigged up the UK Championship in the years since it has been dumbed down!

Re: THIS IS JUDDNATION PART II

Postby Iranu » 22 Oct 2020 Read

If the tour stays pretty much as it is now, the UK and possibly the Masters will eventually be overtaken as the biggest tournaments from the players’ point of view. Whether the BBC like it or not.

Re: THIS IS JUDDNATION PART II

Postby TheRocket » 22 Oct 2020 Read

He is inside the Top10 of the greatest players ever. Obviously closer to the lower end of the Top 10 at this very moment like 8th or 9th greatest player but he's there. Robbo as well.

If he wins one more World title and becomes a multiple World Champion he can be regarded as an All-Time Great. 2 World titles at the very least is a must imo. 3 or more would be better obviously.
Last edited by TheRocket on 22 Oct 2020, edited 1 time in total.

Re: THIS IS JUDDNATION PART II

Postby Dragonfly » 22 Oct 2020 Read

Pink Ball wrote:
Dragonfly wrote:1 title in the masters, 1 title in the UK, and 1 world title puts him on a similar level to Murphy.

You having a bucking laugh?


Trump = 1 masters, 1 UK, 1 world
Murphy = 1 masters,1 UK, 1 world

Looks pretty similar to me

Re: THIS IS JUDDNATION PART II

Postby SnookerEd25 » 22 Oct 2020 Read

Dragonfly wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:
Dragonfly wrote:1 title in the masters, 1 title in the UK, and 1 world title puts him on a similar level to Murphy.

You having a bucking laugh?


Trump = 1 masters, 1 UK, 1 world
Murphy = 1 masters,1 UK, 1 world

Looks pretty similar to me


Maybe, but this is where their other achievements should be used to separate them : 16 other rankers for Judd against 7 for Murphy; Shaun has never been higher than world no.3 while Trump has topped the rankings on 3 different occasions and is currently in the position having been there in excess of 12months - and lets not forget Shaun turned pro 7 years before Judd too.

Judd is on a higher level than Shaun, like it or not.

Re: THIS IS JUDDNATION PART II

Postby rekoons » 22 Oct 2020 Read

SnookerEd25 wrote:
Dragonfly wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:
Dragonfly wrote:1 title in the masters, 1 title in the UK, and 1 world title puts him on a similar level to Murphy.

You having a bucking laugh?


Trump = 1 masters, 1 UK, 1 world
Murphy = 1 masters,1 UK, 1 world

Looks pretty similar to me


Maybe, but this is where their other achievements should be used to separate them : 16 other rankers for Judd against 7 for Murphy; Shaun has never been higher than world no.3 while Trump has topped the rankings on 3 different occasions and is currently in the position having been there in excess of 12months - and lets not forget Shaun turned pro 7 years before Judd too.

Judd is on a higher level than Shaun, like it or not.


Case closed.

Re: THIS IS JUDDNATION PART II

Postby Juddernaut88 » 22 Oct 2020 Read

SnookerEd25 wrote:
Dragonfly wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:
Dragonfly wrote:1 title in the masters, 1 title in the UK, and 1 world title puts him on a similar level to Murphy.

You having a bucking laugh?


Trump = 1 masters, 1 UK, 1 world
Murphy = 1 masters,1 UK, 1 world

Looks pretty similar to me


Maybe, but this is where their other achievements should be used to separate them : 16 other rankers for Judd against 7 for Murphy; Shaun has never been higher than world no.3 while Trump has topped the rankings on 3 different occasions and is currently in the position having been there in excess of 12months - and lets not forget Shaun turned pro 7 years before Judd too.

Judd is on a higher level than Shaun, like it or not.


:goodpost:

Re: THIS IS JUDDNATION PART II

Postby Dragonfly » 22 Oct 2020 Read

Absolutely peak Trump is a better player than peak Murphy. But it can't be denied their record in the majors is identical. I think Trump will overtake Murphy for sure. But until it happens they are identical.

As a previous poster mentioned you can win dozens of Gibraltar opens and nobody cares. So while Trump may go on to great things right now today he can not be compared to Williams and Selby. And is miles away from Davis, O'Sullivan, Higgins,Hendry

Re: THIS IS JUDDNATION PART II

Postby Pink Ball » 22 Oct 2020 Read

Iranu wrote:Nonsense. Judd’s way closer to Robbo than Murphy.

I think he's arguably ahead of Robertson too. I'd still say Robertson shades it, but Trump is definitely going to overtake him.

Murphy was left behind quite a while ago.

Murphy is a very good snooker player, but Trump is brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.

Re: THIS IS JUDDNATION PART II

Postby SnookerFan » 22 Oct 2020 Read

Dragonfly wrote:Absolutely peak Trump is a better player than peak Murphy. But it can't be denied their record in the majors is identical. I think Trump will overtake Murphy for sure. But until it happens they are identical.

As a previous poster mentioned you can win dozens of Gibraltar opens and nobody cares. So while Trump may go on to great things right now today he can not be compared to Williams and Selby. And is miles away from Davis, O'Sullivan, Higgins,Hendry


Yes, but the point is having World, UK and Masters as the only determinant of achievement doesn't make sense. Prioritising them over other tournaments is one thing, but as has been said, saying Judd and Murphy have an identical record just based on their success in the three 'majors' is nonsense. Also is the suggestion that the only difference between their record is that Judd has won dozens more Gibraltar Opens than Murphy is equally silly.

Re: THIS IS JUDDNATION PART II

Postby SnookerEd25 » 22 Oct 2020 Read

Pink Ball wrote:So because their record in majors is 'identical', they're at the same level?

One of them has 18 ranking titles. The other has nine. Spot the difference yet?


Personally, I would have put the word MAJORS in inverted commas there, but maybe that's just me :chin:

Re: THIS IS JUDDNATION PART II

Postby Pink Ball » 22 Oct 2020 Read

SnookerEd25 wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:So because their record in majors is 'identical', they're at the same level?

One of them has 18 ranking titles. The other has nine. Spot the difference yet?


Personally, I would have put the word MAJORS in inverted commas there, but maybe that's just me :chin:

No, I agree actually. The UK and Masters are massively overrated.

Re: THIS IS JUDDNATION PART II

Postby SnookerFan » 22 Oct 2020 Read

Yes, I was thinking about making this point too. For me, I get it with The Crucible, but that's about it.

The UK is devalued compared to what it used to be. Not that I don't enjoy the tournament still, or that it's not better than the best-of-seven heavy Home Nation style tournaments. But whether it's a major or not is debatable now.

What makes a major anyway? In terms of the history of the tournament, it's certainly one. But doesn't match length/prize money come into it too? At the same time, is a major something you can just invent? If I won the lottery, decided to sponsor a new tournament called The SnookerFan Classic that had longer matches and bigger prize money than the rest of the tournaments, does it automatically become a major straight away?

This is why I don't like the BBC chatting about majors. The term is subjective. And don't think they're the be all and end all in terms of deciding whether a player is an All Time Great anyway. (Which is a subjective term in itself.) Though, the UK can be counted as a tournament that it's still longer than the others, I wouldn't put it as equal with The Crucible in terms of greatness. I don't think any tournament is any more.

To be honest, there's no set criteria for what makes an ATG. Even amount of tournaments won could be slightly misleading as a stat in itself, as there was a period when there was only six ranking events in a year. So it's unlikely we'll ever agree on a criteria that is the standard that an All Time Great should adhere to.
Post a reply