How many World titles to become an ATG?

Holden Chinaski wrote:

SnookerEd25 wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:Yeah, but now people don't give a rubbish about players who won the Classic, the British Open, the Grand Prix. Even the Irish Masters and Scottish Masters were seriously respected titles in their day.

The UK Championship was definitely the second biggest event, but it was a free-for-all for third place.

I grew up in that era and the Grand Prix, Classic and British Open were serious majors, they all had 2 session SF's and 2 day finals. Much more prestigious.

But Stephen Hendry said the Triple Crown tournaments were always top priority for him. Ronnie has said the same.

To be fair there’s a difference between “top priority” and “all that matters”.

I think Hendry prioritised the Masters because he won it on his debut and didn't lose there for about six years. He was really gutted when that record went. If he'd lost a couple of matches early on, he might have prioritised the rankers.

Iranu wrote:

Holden Chinaski wrote:

SnookerEd25 wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:Yeah, but now people don't give a rubbish about players who won the Classic, the British Open, the Grand Prix. Even the Irish Masters and Scottish Masters were seriously respected titles in their day.

The UK Championship was definitely the second biggest event, but it was a free-for-all for third place.

I grew up in that era and the Grand Prix, Classic and British Open were serious majors, they all had 2 session SF's and 2 day finals. Much more prestigious.

But Stephen Hendry said the Triple Crown tournaments were always top priority for him. Ronnie has said the same.

To be fair there’s a difference between “top priority” and “all that matters”.

I'm definitely not saying those are all that matter. I'm saying just because the term 'Triple Crown' is relatively new, it doesn't mean they weren't top priority for most players long before the term was invented. Hendry seems to think these tournaments were top priority when he was playing. Also, if you look at the Twitter accounts of most top players, the Triple Crown titles seem to be the only ones they think are worth mentioning in their bio's. Also Ronnie recently said he uses Triple Crown titles to judge if a player is 'great'.

Tournaments like the British Open or the Classic have come and gone. But the UK Championship and the Masters have survived. They still exist.

Holden Chinaski wrote:I'm definitely not saying those are all that matter. I'm saying just because the term 'Triple Crown' is relatively new, it doesn't mean they weren't top priority for most players long before the term was invented. Hendry seems to think these tournaments were top priority when he was playing. Also, if you look at the Twitter accounts of most top players, the Triple Crown titles seem to be the only ones they think are worth mentioning in their bio's. Also Ronnie recently said he uses Triple Crown titles to judge if a player is 'great'.

Yeah my comment was more a response to LC’s idea that the TCs are the benchmark for greatness. They might have been the priority in the past but it seems they weren’t elevated as highly above other tournaments as they are these days. I’m sure if tournaments like the Classic were still going they would closely follow, if not necessarily in quite the same league. (Apart from the Worlds, of course). But they’re not still going. The TCs are.

This is why despite what some people say, the history of a tournament matters. The Tour Championship for example is a tremendous tournament but it can’t be considered a true major until it has a wealth of history behind it, and if it disappears from the calendar in a few years’ time it will merely be a footnote. Hell, the Welsh Open should by rights be up there among the most significant tournaments on tour. It has almost a quarter of a century of history but sadly hasn’t had the format, prize money or player recognition that lends itself to that. I also think it’s been somewhat ‘watered down’ by being amalgamated into the Home Nations after being its own tournament for so long.

That’s why when I talk about the Champion of Champions being considered a factor in player greatness in years to come I always temper that with “if it stays on the calendar”. It needs that history behind it to get close to TC levels of importance.

I’d love to see what would happen if Eurosport or another broadcaster took sole coverage of say the Masters away from the BBC.

Holden Chinaski wrote:

SnookerEd25 wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:Yeah, but now people don't give a rubbish about players who won the Classic, the British Open, the Grand Prix. Even the Irish Masters and Scottish Masters were seriously respected titles in their day.

The UK Championship was definitely the second biggest event, but it was a free-for-all for third place.

I grew up in that era and the Grand Prix, Classic and British Open were serious majors, they all had 2 session SF's and 2 day finals. Much more prestigious.

But Stephen Hendry said the Triple Crown tournaments were always top priority for him. Ronnie has said the same.

Hendry says it cus he works for the BBC but in fairness the UK was huge when he first won it (89 and 90 - two day finals against Davis). Most of what Ronnie talks is bullsheet and can be taken with a pinch of salt. In any case, I'm not disputing they are the three leading events, just that I wouldn't, in all honestly, say the UK ranks much differently to most other events now, because of it's diminished format. The only thing that makes it great is it's proud history. It just narks me that the BBC invented the term TC simply as a way to "big up" their events, when they really do nothing to uphold that status... and the public fell for it. Prior to covid, the China Open had become an event of considerable magnitude not least because it had best-of-19 semi-finals and a best-of-21 final AND carried a whopping £225,000 first prize and ranking points - that's more than the UK ever has.

To be fair to Hendry he doesn’t seem the type to meekly toe the BBC line. I think he believes what he says, even if it wasn’t strictly true at the time.

The UK still has a longer format than most tournaments even in its bastardised form but it’s bull that it doesn’t at least have two-session semis. And yeah, the low prize money is pretty lamentable. But the other factor is the coverage. How can a tournament be done justice when so many matches are not only untelevised but in another room altogether?

Iranu wrote:To be fair to Hendry he doesn’t seem the type to meekly toe the BBC line. I think he believes what he says,

Definitely.

All the top players put huge emphasis on the UK. I stayed up late watching the recent Robertson Trump UK final. Not a great match in terms of standard. But I was still gripped as it was such a major final.

There are only 3 events I'd stay up late for. The Masters. UK and obviously the Worlds. Would I have stayed up for the English open or such like event. No chance, I'd check the score following day and forget about it an hour later.

The public care about and remember the triple crown finals. Nobody is going to be remembered for some final in China or Gibraltar.

Iranu wrote:To be fair to Hendry he doesn’t seem the type to meekly toe the BBC line. I think he believes what he says, even if it wasn’t strictly true at the time.

The UK still has a longer format than most tournaments even in its bastardised form but it’s bull that it doesn’t at least have two-session semis. And yeah, the low prize money is pretty lamentable. But the other factor is the coverage. How can a tournament be done justice when so many matches are not only untelevised but in another room altogether?

This is precisely my point. The BBC have made this TC thing up but are now abusing their power by failing to uphold the event in a way befitting of it's "second biggest event" tag.

Not 3. Because Selby has 3.