Post a reply

John Higgins/Steve Davis

Postby whitespider

As expected a lot of media talk and comparisons with Higgins equalling Davis' in the number of ranking titles won.

When determining the most successful (not greatest) players is this the barometer that most people/commentators use? My question is should it be?

For me it's the Triple Crown Events (including the Masters) + full ranking events. By that logic John is on 30 (I think) and Steve is on 33. Steve has won to date one extra Masters than John, and 2 of his UK wins were not ranking events (seems bizarre that these are not counted retrospectively).

Re: John Higgins/Steve Davis

Postby SnookerFan

You have to take into account ranking events wins, in my opinion. The more you've won, the more consistency you have shown throughout your career.

You consider ranking events first, but when two players have won multiple ranking events, and are close in the amount of rankers they have won, then you start discussing majors when deciding between the two.

Re: John Higgins/Steve Davis

Postby whitespider

So, if I have understood that correctly you would only really look at Masters wins if two players were close in full ranking wins?

So sticking with Davis and Higgins, if you were ranking them that would keep Davis above Higgins for now.

I'm different in my viewpoint as I think the Masters should really be factored in the tally. Given that it's either the 2nd or 3rd biggest snooker tournament depending on your viewpoint.

I'd effectively ignore current and previous non ranking tourney's like CoC or the Charity Challenge though.

Re: John Higgins/Steve Davis

Postby SnookerFan

whitespider wrote:So, if I have understood that correctly you would only really look at Masters wins if two players were close in full ranking wins?

So sticking with Davis and Higgins, if you were ranking them that would keep Davis above Higgins for now.

I'm different in my viewpoint as I think the Masters should really be factored in the tally. Given that it's either the 2nd or 3rd biggest snooker tournament depending on your viewpoint.

I'd effectively ignore current and previous non ranking tourney's like CoC or the Charity Challenge though.


It's difficult to say to be fair, without you telling me which two players you want to compare. And, in the case of Steve Davis, you have to take into account that there was probably less depth in the quality of players in 1980s than there are now.

It's all subjective really.

Re: John Higgins/Steve Davis

Postby whitespider

Yeah fair enough. No two players in particular - it was the Higgins/Davis comparisons that captured my interest. I just was feeling that if the media were going to rank players in this way, then Davis (if he is bothered - which he probably isn't) could quite rightly point to his other UK wins, and his Masters record and ask why are they not taken into account.

A more recent example would be the World Grand Prix. This year it's ranked, last year it wasn't - yet it's the same qualification and format. Judd won last year but he won't get the credit of a ranking win. Which is probably a little unfair and non ranking wins tend to be brushed under the carpet.

Re: John Higgins/Steve Davis

Postby Wildey

its not really important John and Steve are Great players in different eras but i would rate John as a player above Steve Davis not because of what hes won but the way he plays he does go for the jugular more than Steve did.

he still plays the % and plays them well where as Ronnie and Hendry is and was wrecking machines.

Re: John Higgins/Steve Davis

Postby SnookerFan

Smart wrote:Masters hugely over-rated as a tournament. Its an elite exhibition - no more than that. <ok>



You're right. It is elite.

Best. Tournament. Ever.

:mex:

Re: John Higgins/Steve Davis

Postby Pink Ball

Smart wrote:Masters hugely over-rated as a tournament. Its an elite exhibition - no more than that. <ok>

The Masters is rubbish. I think everyone just feels obliged to suck its proverbial cockerel. Glad to see there's someone as honest and commendable as myself on here.

Re: John Higgins/Steve Davis

Postby whitespider

Masters I quite like though I don't understand the other non-rankers like the CoC. They are just Masters lite really.

To be honest I don't understand why we have non-rankers anyway now that Hearn is in sole charge. Not that I'm advocating getting rid of the Masters. I would consider making it a ranking tournament for the top 16. Like the Grand Prix for the top 32 in the year.

Re: John Higgins/Steve Davis

Postby SnookerFan

The Grand Prix weren't ranking, was it?

I quite like The Masters too. If anything is overrated it's the Ally Pally. The atmosphere is okay, but not as great as it's made out to be. And it's miles away from everywhere. Crowds turn out to it, but people seem to be wanting to go there purely because it's home of the darts. The only positive thing of it, from my personal viewpoint is that I can commute to it from my home. Not much else going for it, really. :shrug:

Though the CoC and the Grand Prix are alright, and ITV4 coverage was excellent, I have no problem with them becoming ranking events rather than invitational. Masters aside, rankers should always trump invitationals.

Re: John Higgins/Steve Davis

Postby Sickpotter

I like the Masters if for no other reason than we're assured the winner will never be a player outside the top 16 ;-)

Re: John Higgins/Steve Davis

Postby Holden Chinaski

I love the Masters. It's my second favourite tournament. Always a great atmosphere and so many epic battles have been fought at the Masters.

Re: John Higgins/Steve Davis

Postby Andre147

Holden Chinaski wrote:I love the Masters. It's my second favourite tournament. Always a great atmosphere and so many epic battles have been fought at the Masters.


Me too, to say it's overrated is just ridiculous really.

It's the elite Top 16 players ffs, and whoever wins it HAS to beat the best of the best in the World, there's no hiding from it.

And if it turned into a ranking tournament it would forever lose it's prestige and nostalgia.

What makes it such a great tournament is because it's an invitational one, and whoever wants to be in it has to be inside the Top 16.

The venue certainly will not be the same since the Old Conference Center, but it's such a great tournament regardless.

Re: John Higgins/Steve Davis

Postby SnookerFan

Sickpotter wrote:I like the Masters if for no other reason than we're assured the winner will never be a player outside the top 16 ;-)


Why would that make a difference?

Re: John Higgins/Steve Davis

Postby whitespider

SnookerFan wrote:The Grand Prix weren't ranking, was it?

I quite like The Masters too. If anything is overrated it's the Ally Pally. The atmosphere is okay, but not as great as it's made out to be. And it's miles away from everywhere. Crowds turn out to it, but people seem to be wanting to go there purely because it's home of the darts. The only positive thing of it, from my personal viewpoint is that I can commute to it from my home. Not much else going for it, really. :shrug:

Though the CoC and the Grand Prix are alright, and ITV4 coverage was excellent, I have no problem with them becoming ranking events rather than invitational. Masters aside, rankers should always trump invitationals.


Grand Prix wasn't ranking last year but it will be this year. So if they can restrict the field to 32 based off a unique qualification and call it a ranker, then technically they could do that with the Masters also (with being in the top 16 at the cut off as the qualification).

Re: John Higgins/Steve Davis

Postby Pink Ball

SnookerFan wrote:The Grand Prix weren't ranking, was it?

I quite like The Masters too. If anything is overrated it's the Ally Pally. The atmosphere is okay, but not as great as it's made out to be. And it's miles away from everywhere. Crowds turn out to it, but people seem to be wanting to go there purely because it's home of the darts. The only positive thing of it, from my personal viewpoint is that I can commute to it from my home. Not much else going for it, really. :shrug:

Though the CoC and the Grand Prix are alright, and ITV4 coverage was excellent, I have no problem with them becoming ranking events rather than invitational. Masters aside, rankers should always trump invitationals.

Because we weren't forced to twiddle off over both those tournaments and say they were the best on tour. The Masters is like the girl in school when we were 16 that we all claimed was sexy just because she gave blowjobs, but we all secretly thought was only average.

Re: John Higgins/Steve Davis

Postby SnookerFan

Forced to twiddle over it?

If you are masturbating whilst The Masters is on, rest assured it isn't compulsory.

Re: John Higgins/Steve Davis

Postby SnookerFan

Changing the subject, the news that the World Grand Prix was becoming a ranking event somewhat passed me by. (Or more likely, I did know it and forgot.)

Seems a weird idea. I mean, Hearn's approach seems to be that he wants everybody to qualify together, for everything. Then he makes a ranking event that only 32 players are eligible to play in. Seems odd, somehow.

Re: John Higgins/Steve Davis

Postby Pink Ball

SnookerFan wrote:Changing the subject, the news that the World Grand Prix was becoming a ranking event somewhat passed me by. (Or more likely, I did know it and forgot.)

Seems a weird idea. I mean, Hearn's approach seems to be that he wants everybody to qualify together, for everything. Then he makes a ranking event that only 32 players are eligible to play in. Seems odd, somehow.

Yet he won't take just 32 players to the venue for the UK Championship when it should be treated as a mini World Championship

Re: John Higgins/Steve Davis

Postby PoolBoy

I didn't realise the Grand Prix was to be a ranking event this season. It should just be left alone as a Masters-lite event.
It's surely not fair, as it's effectively an invitational tournament. The players that 'qualify' are there because of performances in other competitions - that they've already been rewarded for!

In football, the teams play their matches and get 'ranking points'. The best then qualify for/invited into the Champions League. The points gained in the Champions League aren't added onto their Premier League total!
They're in the CL because of their bread-and-butter performances in the ranking events (Premier League).

To emphasise, using an exaggerated, but nonetheless, relevant example, say there's an event called the snooker Super Cup.
There's £200k to the winner and £100k to the runner-up plus a ranking title is at stake.
Played at the end of the season between the World Champion and the no.1 ranked player. Or no.2 if same player. ie. Bingham v Selby.
Why should they be invited to increase their advantage over all the other players?

The Masters has it spot on. A prestigious invitational for the best players who are there on merit having been awarded prize money (ranking points). They shouldn't then (and thankfully don't) get further points for competing in the tournament...Hearn, please leave the Masters as it is!

Re: John Higgins/Steve Davis

Postby whitespider

SnookerFan wrote:Changing the subject, the news that the World Grand Prix was becoming a ranking event somewhat passed me by. (Or more likely, I did know it and forgot.)

Seems a weird idea. I mean, Hearn's approach seems to be that he wants everybody to qualify together, for everything. Then he makes a ranking event that only 32 players are eligible to play in. Seems odd, somehow.


I reckon it's because for some reason we are short on ranking events this year. There's no Indian Open and there are other gaps on the calendar. No Wuxi Classic either (though the World Cup took that slot). But that's two less rankers so the Grand Prix is filling one of those gaps.

We still don't know how the tour will look next season with the new/reintroduction of Scottish, Irish and English Open's. Suspicion this could be a one off ranking season for the Grand Prix because your right - it goes against everything else he has said.

Re: John Higgins/Steve Davis

Postby whitespider

PoolBoy wrote:I didn't realise the Grand Prix was to be a ranking event this season. It should just be left alone as a Masters-lite event.
It's surely not fair, as it's effectively an invitational tournament. The players that 'qualify' are there because of performances in other competitions - that they've already been rewarded for!

In football, the teams play their matches and get 'ranking points'. The best then qualify for/invited into the Champions League. The points gained in the Champions League aren't added onto their Premier League total!
They're in the CL because of their bread-and-butter performances in the ranking events (Premier League).

To emphasise, using an exaggerated, but nonetheless, relevant example, say there's an event called the snooker Super Cup.
There's £200k to the winner and £100k to the runner-up plus a ranking title is at stake.
Played at the end of the season between the World Champion and the no.1 ranked player. Or no.2 if same player. ie. Bingham v Selby.
Why should they be invited to increase their advantage over all the other players?

The Masters has it spot on. A prestigious invitational for the best players who are there on merit having been awarded prize money (ranking points). They shouldn't then (and thankfully don't) get further points for competing in the tournament...Hearn, please leave the Masters as it is!


I agree with that in principle but I would rather see more rankers and less invitational events as ultimately, going back to my original post invitational competition winners tend to get forgotten about and not included by the media. Now that's right for certain competitions, though I would not include Masters and the early UK's in that. list.

Re: John Higgins/Steve Davis

Postby Sickpotter

SnookerFan wrote:
Sickpotter wrote:I like the Masters if for no other reason than we're assured the winner will never be a player outside the top 16 ;-)


Why would that make a difference?


Perhaps I mis-phrased that....never going to see a final with a huge ranking gap between players. Too often leads to a one sided match when that happens.

Better chance of a tight final and more drama when the field is only top 16. <ok>

Re: John Higgins/Steve Davis

Postby SnookerFan

Sickpotter wrote:
Perhaps I mis-phrased that....never going to see a final with a huge ranking gap between players. Too often leads to a one sided match when that happens.

Better chance of a tight final and more drama when the field is only top 16. <ok>


It didn't work in 2014.

Re: John Higgins/Steve Davis

Postby Dan-cat

SnookerFan wrote:
Sickpotter wrote:
Perhaps I mis-phrased that....never going to see a final with a huge ranking gap between players. Too often leads to a one sided match when that happens.

Better chance of a tight final and more drama when the field is only top 16. <ok>


It didn't work in 2014.


Lolz. I was at that bloodbath.

Re: John Higgins/Steve Davis

Postby SnookerFan

Pink Ball wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:Changing the subject, the news that the World Grand Prix was becoming a ranking event somewhat passed me by. (Or more likely, I did know it and forgot.)

Seems a weird idea. I mean, Hearn's approach seems to be that he wants everybody to qualify together, for everything. Then he makes a ranking event that only 32 players are eligible to play in. Seems odd, somehow.

Yet he won't take just 32 players to the venue for the UK Championship when it should be treated as a mini World Championship


:goodpost:

Re: John Higgins/Steve Davis

Postby Holden Chinaski

Class:




Do you know who John Higgins looked up to when he was a child and who's style and attitude he copied? Do you know who was O'Sullivans hero when he was a little boy? A hero he used to imitate in every way in order to learn the game of snooker? That's right, Steve Davis!

In my opinion, the five absolute masters, the five kings of the modern game, are Ray Reardon, Steve Davis, Stephen Hendry, John Higgins and Ronnie O'Sullivan. It's hard to say who was better than who. They are the absolute masters who have that class that makes them even better than players like Alex Higgins, Jimmy White, Mark Williams, Mark Selby...

Ray Reardon, when he was already rather old, whitewashed Steve Davis in his prime twice!
Steve Davis when he was long past his prime beat Ronnie and John Higgins in important matches as well. It's not fair to say Reardon and Davis had "easier" eras. They were the masters of their time and beat whoever was in front of them, including legends like Alex Higgins and Jimmy White.

Re: John Higgins/Steve Davis

Postby NNear

I obviously believe that Masters have to be factored in and I've always seen it as one of the premier events. The understanding that the players have is that the Triple Crown events are the most important events to win on the calendar. It's quite hard to ignore that. I also don't rate current UK victories as being worse than older ones with longer formats, nor automatically give greater credence to 145 frame WSC finals.