UK or Masters ?

aussiewild wrote:Im Really Torn on this.

So am I.

I find this whole thread rather surprising, but hey ho life goes on.

I don't think there's anything we should be torn on. The Masters is a very fine event, a definite third, but on the whole I find it a little overated. Still love it though.

The UK is magic, quite simple. It has it's faults, but on the whole it is by far my favourite event, Worlds aside.

The Masters not The UK is the Next on the Neil Robertson Hit List to win http://www.worldsnooker.com/world_open_ ... ts_Masters)-2657.htm?tid=165

I know it is not just about money but the winner of the Masters gets £150,000 and the UK only £100,000.

sundaygirl wrote:I know it is not just about money but the winner of the Masters gets £150,000 and the UK only £100,000.

Means nothing. The World Open is worth a hundred grand, and though it's an excellent tournament, it don't compare to the Masters and certainly not the UK.

Hendry rates the Masters above the UK !!!

also its the longest running tournament apart from the World itself.

money and Ranking points arent the issue but what players want on their CV.

to be the master or UK Champ.

aussiewild wrote:also its the longest running tournament apart from the World itself.

money and Ranking points arent the issue but what players want on their CV.

to be the master or UK Champ.

well having a Masters on the CV rather than a UK..................not sure I get the total prestige of the Masters (never have). I enjoy it as its a quality event with obviously a quality field and that is all that needs to be said.

BUT any achievement at the UK is far more significant in my book as you are not only beating a selected field but you are beating ALL the field. Every pro that is eligible you can say you have bettered.

The longer format also is far superior to best of 9 (majority) at the Masters.

The biggest difference between the UK and the Masters for me is the atmosphere which is generated. London really is special for its night time atmosphere.

Anyway, to put it to bed, I would never consider taking 5 half days for the Masters or take a sickie week. No sir. But the UK well that has got the 5 half day treatment this year and has had the sickie week in the past ......................cos its very special.

Witz78 wrote:Hendry rates the Masters above the UK !!!

Hendo

i think if you poll players about 80% would Rate the Masters Higher but we as fans look at it slightly differently.

aussiewild wrote:i think if you poll players about 80% would Rate the Masters Higher but we as fans look at it slightly differently.

80% .....

Can you in any way justify this figure. Thank you in advance.

Rankings beat prestige invitationals every time - FACTOSMARTO

aussiewild wrote:i think if you poll players about 80% would Rate the Masters Higher but we as fans look at it slightly differently.

The players love the Masters, but I think that's because there's less pressure and easier to bring your highest quality game as a result. In terms of quality, the Masters tops every tournament, including the World Championship.

However, this as I have said is only due to less pressure (no ranking points). The UK Championship & World Championship are serious pressure tournaments with serious formats against a bigger field. That for me puts them both ahead of the Masters.

i think its more than that especially when it was at the conference center they just wanted to get there to play simple as that.

aussiewild wrote:i think its more than that especially when it was at the conference center they just wanted to get there to play simple as that.

Because it's so enjoyable & more laid back..... due to LESS pressure. I reckon most players prefer playing there to the World aswell. Does that make it better than the Worlds?

UK every single time

I think you are very close to hitting the nail on the head there Tubs. I view it as an exhibition/invitation event - and enjot it in that vein. Its proper snooker but played by an elite field in front of (especially at night) an appreciative/audible audience.

Its great but rankers all the way for me.

Hendry would say he preferred the Masters because he won it so many times they gave him the trophy. Obviously the Masters is an elite field, but the recent introduction of wildcards and especially now with the rolling rankings, it has taken a slight edge away from the prestige element. Don't get me wrong, the Masters is my personal second favourite event but the UK is proper snooker, long matches and the whole professional field is involved. If I was a player I would be more satisfied with winning the UK than the Masters, but the fact the Masters is the elite field and you don't face someone who "fluked" their way to the televised stage through a couple of weeks of form a couple of months ago and you always get big name v big name then it's gotta be one of those high on the agenda for every player.

i see your point about the implement of rolling rankings effecting the prestige of the masters

I love rolling rankings, but the old days of the top 16 lasting through a season and getting a place in the Masters 9 months in advance are over. It should make the Masters better because the form players are there. Maybe it will lift it beyond the UK. Personally I can't believe the wildcard selections recently and the fact that Jamie Cope and Liang Wenbo still haven't played in it. Cope is finally guaranteed but Liang was denied by the Jimmycard last year (he was the only alternative but the jungle killed him) and he's the victim of rolling rankings this year. Liang Wenbo is going to be a prominent player over the next few seasons.

Sonny wrote:I love rolling rankings, but the old days of the top 16 lasting through a season and getting a place in the Masters 9 months in advance are over. It should make the Masters

thats true, because to be in the masters you will have to be ON form. so should produce some great matches. well i cant wait till this seasons masters is over and have a great discussion about it

to be honest sonny Wenbo has not featured at all since his run to the final of the Shanghai Masters in August or September 2009....has he been on TV Since ?

First Round at the Crucible this year.

PLtheRef wrote:First Round at the Crucible this year.

ohhhh yes should have said apart from that lol

The Masters always had a bigger prize pot and always carried more prestige than the UK. Anyone could win the UK. Fagan, Doug Mountjoy, McGuire, Murphy, Peter Ebdon. Masters champions were always a bit special.

wheelsofsteel wrote:The Masters always had a bigger prize pot and always carried more prestige than the UK. Anyone could win the UK. Fagan, Doug Mountjoy, McGuire, Murphy, Peter Ebdon. Masters champions were always a bit special.

You have to win less matches /frames to be Masters champion . If I remember correctly until 1982 a top seed could win a total of 3 matches to be masters champion . Perrie Mans won the masters without making a break ove 50 - a record that will almost certainly never be broken

14-6, says it all.