Post a reply

147s not really a big deal anymore?

Postby LC

When I started watching 25+ years ago maxis where rare and there was a buzz whenever someone did it especially live, but nowadays they are so common, every tournament nearly, that it barely raises an eyebrow.
Are they players that good now or are the table/conditions so much easier?

Re: 147s not really a big deal anymore?

Postby TheRocket

there are tournaments where table conditions seem to be easier like CoC but I think the main reason is that the level in breakbuilding has definitely improved. Certainly compared to the 80's or 90's. 00's as well.

Even lower ranked players can easily make 2 or 3 tons in a row now. Doesnt mean they are better or more successful players but they score heavier. Someone like Tom Ford made 5 maximum breaks in his career.

Re: 147s not really a big deal anymore?

Postby LDS

147s never were that big of a deal even in the 'olden days'. Willie Thorne had the nickname Mr. Maximum for a reason. He'd regularly knock them in during exhibition events.

What makes them a big deal is doing them under the pressure of television, big crowds and huge paydays, particularly in the big prestigious events.

Knocking them in during r1 or the qualifiers when you're already 4-0 up and you know the opposition is rubbish is a completely different kettle of fish, more akin to Thorne's exhibition matches.

But I know what you're saying. And yes, even in the big events they are more common, but don't forget, there's been barely any at the Crucible over the last decade, and John's in 2020 was in a completely crowdless environment in the early stages of the competition.

Re: 147s not really a big deal anymore?

Postby LC

The crucible is probably the last place left where maxis have any prominence for me, only the greats of snooker have done it there bar Ali Carter lol

Re: 147s not really a big deal anymore?

Postby shanew48

[quote="LDS"]147s never were that big of a deal even in the 'olden days'. Willie Thorne had the nickname Mr. Maximum for a reason. He'd regularly knock them in during exhibition events.

Only 5 of Thornes 198 maximums were made in an exhibition, (not that many when you think how many exhibition frames he played) the rest were made in practice, still impressive I guess, obviously not any pressure in practice though is there as if you miss the black ala Ken Docherty masters style, no one would actually know would they.

Obviously much more of a feat in an exhibition situation as people have paid to watch in the expectation that they will see minimum 100 + breaks if not a 147.

Still don't think maximums in practice should be counted really for the above reasons.

Re: 147s not really a big deal anymore?

Postby shanew48

shanew48 wrote:
LDS wrote:147s never were that big of a deal even in the 'olden days'. Willie Thorne had the nickname Mr. Maximum for a reason. He'd regularly knock them in during exhibition events.

Only 5 of Thornes 198 maximums were made in an exhibition, (not that many when you think how many exhibition frames he played) the rest were made in practice, still impressive I guess, obviously not any pressure in practice though is there as if you miss the black ala Ken Docherty masters style, no one would actually know would they.

Obviously much more of a feat in an exhibition situation as people have paid to watch in the expectation that they will see minimum 100 + breaks if not a 147.

Still don't think maximums in practice should be counted really for the above reasons.


My point was that I don't think five maximums over many years of exhibitions can be considered regularly?

Re: 147s not really a big deal anymore?

Postby LDS

:shrug:

In order to define the term regularly in relation to the thread then the OP would need to define their own version of regularly, as in every little tournament or just the big ones everyone watches.

Steve Davis made the first televised 147 in 1982 during the Lada Classic, but no-one really remembers that... because it was the Lada Classic, apart from folks like us, of course, but the whole nation knew when Cliff Thorburn did it a whole year later at the Crucible to the point where Thorburn's 147 might as well have been the first televised 147 in all but the pedantry of fact.

Who remembers or ever mentions Kirk Steven's 147 at the Masters in 1984?

Or Tony Meo's in the 88 Matchroom League?

Looking at the stats, there was already one per year in the 80s, it just didn't seem like it because not many people cared about the lesser events back then, there wasn't the sense of daily engagement you get from an internet world.

There were 5 maximums in 1992.

Here's the full breakdown by year:

82 - 1
83 - 1
84 - 1
87 - 1
88 - 2
89 - 2
91 - 2
92 - 5
94 - 1
95 - 2
97 - 3
98 - 3
99 - 10
00 - 7
01 - 3
02 - 1
03 - 3
04 - 2
05 - 2
06 - 2
07 - 6
08 - 7
09 - 2
10 - 7
11 - 9
12 - 11
13 - 6
14 - 8
15 - 6
16 - 8
17 - 10
18 - 12
19 - 9
20 - 3 ?

So, weirdly enough, the number of 147s is declining at the moment, so the OP might just be labouring a point they'd made some years ago but only now worked up the courage to write about it publicly.

Also, you cannot underestimate the fact that 36 of those 147s were made by just 3 people ;)

But the key here is that the yearly total seems really high for the last decade taken as a whole rather than looking at individual years, or since 07 really, as a general trend.

So what happened in 07?

I remember watching an interview with Neil Robertson where he was saying how different the tour is to how it was when he started, how he remembered there just being a few ranking events a year compared to 'nowadays'.

So lets compare the above maximum stats inflation with the ranking event inflation:

2006/7 - 7 ranking events
7/8 - 7
8/9 - 8
9/10 - 6
10/11 - 8
11/12 - 9
12/13 - 11
13/14 - 12
14/15 - 13
15/16 - 12
16/17 - 19
17/18 - 20
18/19 - 20
19/20 - 17
20/21 - 5 (so far)

so we see that the number of 147s per event is actually less now than it was in 2007 and that the true '147s at every event' mindset would have been only really in the years 99 & 2000.

It kinda makes sense that if you play more events you'll see more regular 147s.

And we're back to the definition of what one means by regular.

And we're back to the last World Championship 147 with a crowd being Hendry's in 2012 and the fact that the statisticians who created the above stats count 3 147s during the WSC qualifiers as official 147 stats, even though that's not really what people think about when they think of professional 147s. In fact, the word qualifiers appears 21 times. And that's before you start counting events like those with League in the title (accounting for a further 16 of those 147s). And another 10 from events that have the word Tour in the title.

Triple Crowns:

WSC: 2 in 10 years
Masters: 1 in 10 years
UK: 6 in 10 years

Which, all together, doesn't even make one per year.

It stands to reason, the more frames that get played and statisised, the more 147s there'll appear to be.

Re: 147s not really a big deal anymore?

Postby shanew48

LDS wrote::shrug:

In order to define the term regularly in relation to the thread then the OP would need to define their own version of regularly, as in every little tournament or just the big ones everyone watches.

Steve Davis made the first televised 147 in 1982 during the Lada Classic, but no-one really remembers that... because it was the Lada Classic, apart from folks like us, of course, but the whole nation knew when Cliff Thorburn did it a whole year later at the Crucible to the point where Thorburn's 147 might as well have been the first televised 147 in all but the pedantry of fact.

Who remembers or ever mentions Kirk Steven's 147 at the Masters in 1984?

Or Tony Meo's in the 88 Matchroom League?

Looking at the stats, there was already one per year in the 80s, it just didn't seem like it because not many people cared about the lesser events back then, there wasn't the sense of daily engagement you get from an internet world.

There were 5 maximums in 1992.

Here's the full breakdown by year:

82 - 1
83 - 1
84 - 1
87 - 1
88 - 2
89 - 2
91 - 2
92 - 5
94 - 1
95 - 2
97 - 3
98 - 3
99 - 10
00 - 7
01 - 3
02 - 1
03 - 3
04 - 2
05 - 2
06 - 2
07 - 6
08 - 7
09 - 2
10 - 7
11 - 9
12 - 11
13 - 6
14 - 8
15 - 6
16 - 8
17 - 10
18 - 12
19 - 9
20 - 3 ?

So, weirdly enough, the number of 147s is declining at the moment, so the OP might just be labouring a point they'd made some years ago but only now worked up the courage to write about it publicly.

Also, you cannot underestimate the fact that 36 of those 147s were made by just 3 people ;)

But the key here is that the yearly total seems really high for the last decade taken as a whole rather than looking at individual years, or since 07 really, as a general trend.

So what happened in 07?

I remember watching an interview with Neil Robertson where he was saying how different the tour is to how it was when he started, how he remembered there just being a few ranking events a year compared to 'nowadays'.

So lets compare the above maximum stats inflation with the ranking event inflation:

2006/7 - 7 ranking events
7/8 - 7
8/9 - 8
9/10 - 6
10/11 - 8
11/12 - 9
12/13 - 11
13/14 - 12
14/15 - 13
15/16 - 12
16/17 - 19
17/18 - 20
18/19 - 20
19/20 - 17
20/21 - 5 (so far)

so we see that the number of 147s per event is actually less now than it was in 2007 and that the true '147s at every event' mindset would have been only really in the years 99 & 2000.

It kinda makes sense that if you play more events you'll see more regular 147s.

And we're back to the definition of what one means by regular.

And we're back to the last World Championship 147 with a crowd being Hendry's in 2012 and the fact that the statisticians who created the above stats count 3 147s during the WSC qualifiers as official 147 stats, even though that's not really what people think about when they think of professional 147s. In fact, the word qualifiers appears 21 times. And that's before you start counting events like those with League in the title (accounting for a further 16 of those 147s). And another 10 from events that have the word Tour in the title.

Triple Crowns:

WSC: 2 in 10 years
Masters: 1 in 10 years
UK: 6 in 10 years

Which, all together, doesn't even make one per year.

It stands to reason, the more frames that get played and statisised, the more 147s there'll appear to be.


He would have been doing exhibitions for maybe at least 20 years? if not longer? if you were generous and said it was only 20 years, that would mean that he made a maximum break once every 4 years, I don't think anyone, however contrarian, could class that as regularly unless they were being deliberately obtuse.

Re: 147s not really a big deal anymore?

Postby rekoons

I guess it's also partly because the playing field has become more competitive; take a look at this post I made in this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=684&t=10223&start=2100

It shows that over the past 2 decades, the % of 50+ breaks has slowly but steadily increased at the top (ronnie the top dog), but more importantly: the rest of the field is catching up, and quicker too: average % of 50+ breaks by the #10 player has increased from 28 to 38%, while at the top progress was a bit slower (as is to be expected offcourse) from 43 to 50-ish %.

relatively speaking over 20 years the #10 player has increased his 50+ breaks ability by 36%, while the #1 player (Ronnie mostly ;-) ) has increased by 'only' 16%.

ability to make 147's will probably also rise because of this, and a LOT more tournaments nowadays...


rekoons wrote:
rekoons wrote:I went through the data and listed the numbers 1 2 and 10 % +50 break scorers from the last 20 seasons:

Image

For me this on it's own is enough objective data to state O Sullivan is the greatest snooker player from the last 2 decades.
Otherwise the whole GOAT debate feels too subjective to me.

Who knows where hendry would've been had he been born the same year as Ronnie, they would've pushed each other on to ever become better my guess.

I highlighted some seasons which seem to be more competititve than others in terms of % difference between numbers 1 and 2. (I forgot to highlight 11/12 with Ronnie and Allen, can't be bothered now to change)

another interesting observation is that over the course of 20 years the number 10 percentage has been rising smoothly, and faster than the # 1 spot, suggesting the top of the field is getting more competitive.



Seems like somebody else did the same with 70+ break percentages:

Same story at first glance, except for 2008/2009 Mark Selby, and 2013/2014 Ding Junhui.

https://www.reddit.com/r/snooker/commen ... er_season/

Image

Re: 147s not really a big deal anymore?

Postby LDS

shanew48 wrote:He would have been doing exhibitions for maybe at least 20 years? if not longer? if you were generous and said it was only 20 years, that would mean that he made a maximum break once every 4 years, I don't think anyone, however contrarian, could class that as regularly unless they were being deliberately obtuse.


Oh wow, you really are humourlessly obsessed about the use of the word regularly aren't you <laugh>

Well I don't know my good man. If the supposed 5 in exhibition occurred in relatively quick succession over a relatively short period, then that would have been referred to as regularly at the time <laugh>

I dunno mate, post the link that shows when he made the exhibition 147s and we can all individually assess for ourselves whether if we lived at time we would have referred to his feats as 'regular' <laugh>

Re: 147s not really a big deal anymore?

Postby LDS

rekoons wrote:All those excellent stats


How do you feel about the social pressure that modern players face with regards to their playstyle being at the core of why those stats materialised?

It's well known that Hendry very much pioneered the aggressive style of snooker which exchanged the notion of Playing The Percentage Shot with instead Playing The Risky Shot That Might Win You The Frame. And that this was later enhanced by O'Sullivan by making the crowd become verbally abusive towards the more negative players (see the Ebdon controversies, most notable after O'Sullivan starts losing to him).

Time was when the crowd would enjoy a good safety exchange as much as a good pot and the idea of smashing in the opening red wasn't a foregone conclusion. The reason a lot of the olden days frames took 20 minutes instead of 10 was because you usually had 5 or 10 minutes of safety before the first red was potted. And if the first red was potted from distance, the player often played it with safety in mind & the white would be back in balk afterwards.

However, in the modern game, everyone likes to bash away at any red from distance that looks like it could go in at least 25% of the time. And they do so with the intention of keeping the red near the black. Resulting in a situation whereby it doesn't matter if the red goes in or not, someone is very quickly in a position of being amongst the red and black very quickly in a frame.

Likewise, this approach to the game, this mindset throughout a break, will more often than not always be a case of either making a big break or, if the break falters, leaving a big break on for your opponent.

Whereas, in the olden days, it was much more a case of running for balk as soon as you got to a point in the break where you were faced with a pot that was 'a bit too awkward'.

With the crucifixion of Ebdon, did the notion of defensive percentage play effectively become an insult to be used unsparingly against any players who attempted to retreat to defensive or slow'er play. And, as a result of this changed social imperative, isn't it more a case that games are just more open to bigger breaks generally rather than the players themselves being dramatically better break builders? In that, over the years, I've never really noticed any top players not scoring heavily when they're presented with a position of being set loose amongst the reds and an open black, that scenario in a frame just used to happen less frequently.

I don't know how you'd look into this, stat-wise, but it's certainly something to consider.

Re: 147s not really a big deal anymore?

Postby rekoons

LDS wrote:How do you feel about the social pressure that modern players face with regards to their playstyle being at the core of why those stats materialised?


Don't know really, I haven't been following snooker that long actually I guess...

LDS wrote:And, as a result of this changed social imperative, isn't it more a case that games are just more open to bigger breaks generally rather than the players themselves being dramatically better break builders?


Interesting view, I don't know the answer but would tend to say "yes" on the games being more open to bigger breaks, but "no" on the following part. I do think players are better break builders now because:

- Hendry pioneered the more aggresive play, as you say.
- *all* players have upped their break building ability ever since as a consequence of Hendry (stats don't lie)
- and the cloths are getting faster

LDS wrote:I don't know how you'd look into this, stat-wise, but it's certainly something to consider.


good question

Re: 147s not really a big deal anymore?

Postby Dragonfly

I definitely think 147 is not really a big deal now. To put it in context I can clearly remember the night Thorburn made 147 in the Worlds. I remember where I was, who I was watching with and so on. It was hugely exciting. Got big coverage in the media as well.

I saw Trumps 147 yesterday. While admiring the skill involved it didn't raise my heart beat any. I just kinda thought well that was nice.

Of course I understand that I am much older now than I was in 1983. I am not going to get as excited watching tv as when I was a young lad. But I have seen so many 147s now. Even the players don't seem that thrilled when they do it. I guess they would react more if it was still 147000 prize.

Re: 147s not really a big deal anymore?

Postby Andre147

Also depends on how big the occasion is.

It's way different doing a 147 in front of no crowd or very little crowd, instead of making one in a big Masters match or a Crucible match with all the crowd involved.

The skill required will always be the same, but we have so many now that wow factor is gone a bit. But like I said depends very much on where it's done.

Re: 147s not really a big deal anymore?

Postby LC

I haven’t seen any of the latest maxis by Higgins, Murphy or trump, because they aren’t really special anymore in fact probably the only way one could be forever remembered if it was done in the world champs and for added kudos the final, has one ever been made in a TC FINAL?

Re: 147s not really a big deal anymore?

Postby LC

I haven’t seen any of the latest maxis by Higgins, Murphy or trump, because they aren’t really special anymore in fact probably the only way one could be forever remembered if it was done in the world champs and for added kudos the final, has one ever been made in a TC FINAL?

Re: 147s not really a big deal anymore?

Postby rekoons

Not a real TC, but Hendry made a 147 in the decider of the 1997 Victoria Charity Challenge against ronnie to win 10-9.

Re: 147s not really a big deal anymore?

Postby Cloud Strife

Yeah, I agree 147s aren't as special as they used to be, mainly because they are so common now.

The only time they would get significant media coverage or fan interest like the old times now is if the 147 was some sort of monumental feat. Like for example if it happened in the deciding frame of the World Championship final or someone happened to beat Ronnie’s record of 5 minutes and 20 seconds. Other than that, people just won't care like they used to.

Re: 147s not really a big deal anymore?

Postby Cloud Strife

rekoons wrote:Not a real TC, but Hendry made a 147 in the decider of the 1997 Victoria Charity Challenge against ronnie to win 10-9.


Ronnie also made one in the deciding frame of his UK semi-final against Selby in 2008. The closest so far to one being done in the final of a TC event.

Re: 147s not really a big deal anymore?

Postby LDS

Don't forget the Albatross of a 148+ break using a free ball.

I'm sure if one of those happened in the World Championships then I'd be awarding that 10 points in any future vids.

Re: 147s not really a big deal anymore?

Postby HappyCamper

like make it like straight pool where after the last ball the ref re-racks all the reds and you can keep going. could get some monster breaks then.

Re: 147s not really a big deal anymore?

Postby GeF

HappyCamper wrote:They just need to add more balls. That'll make it harder again.

No, remove one ball.
It will be more harder to make a 147 with 14 reds...