Will Ronnnie win the World Title in his 40s?

mantorok wrote:

Andy Spark wrote:All this emphasis on just one tournament a year is an unfortunate thing. Snooker would be much, much better served by changing to a four grand slam model like golf or tennis. I saw that rack pack film by the BBC, didn't even mention the 1983 UK's when Higgins came back from 0-7 against Davis. And this in a film about the Higgins/Davis rivalry!

I disagree, the tournament is a true test of consistency, focus, mentality and skill over a long period, I think it's good to have something for players to strive for, anyone who wins it has gone through a lot of pain to achieve it, and having it once a year makes it all the more special.

Any more than 1 like that and you risk diluting its importance, every player wants to be WC, I think it's important to have that pinnacle in such a sport.

To use the tennis example you could though have a series of second tier events (in tennis it's the Masters titles). So you have the World Champs on tier one, then you have four or so tier two tournaments. So off the top of my head - UK Champs, European Champs, Asian Champs (International), American Champs (wishful thinking).

Holden Chinaski wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:Can a player be considered great, if they have never won the World Championship?

Discuss.

Yes. Jimmy White is definitely one of the greats.

I would argue as well that despite his current form Ding is also.

SnookerFan wrote:Can a player be considered great, if they have never won the World Championship?

Discuss.

Certainly, from a fan's perspective, but I would imagine said players would inside be feeling like they never achieved true greatness in their chosen career, it's an aspiration and the look on Jimmy's face just spells out total and utter regret.

What is a good discussion is whether a a single-WC winner should be considered great, because I can think of a few flukes personally, and players who won the WC once but not many other smaller titles.

I would hazard a guess that any player who has won it once wishes to win it again just to prove it wasn't a fluke.

Conversely, a player can win the WC and still not be considered a great.

Dan-cat wrote:Conversely, a player can win the WC and still not be considered a great.

Stuart Bingham.

Dan-cat wrote:Conversely, a player can win the WC and still not be considered a great.

Graeme Dott
Peter Ebdon

Both, funnily enough, responsible for one of the worst finals in history.

Joe Johnson. Epic that he made the final the following year though, the nugget wasn't about to let another slip away.

Cloud Strife wrote:

Dan-cat wrote:Conversely, a player can win the WC and still not be considered a great.

Stuart Bingham.

Selby and Robbo.

mantorok wrote:

Andy Spark wrote:All this emphasis on just one tournament a year is an unfortunate thing. Snooker would be much, much better served by changing to a four grand slam model like golf or tennis. I saw that rack pack film by the BBC, didn't even mention the 1983 UK's when Higgins came back from 0-7 against Davis. And this in a film about the Higgins/Davis rivalry!

I disagree, the tournament is a true test of consistency, focus, mentality and skill over a long period, I think it's good to have something for players to strive for, anyone who wins it has gone through a lot of pain to achieve it, and having it once a year makes it all the more special.

Any more than 1 like that and you risk diluting its importance, every player wants to be WC, I think it's important to have that pinnacle in such a sport.

I am not suggesting having more than one 17 day marathon a year, but a changing of name/status (possibly from "The World Championships" to "The Crucible") and another one or two best of 17 match events, plus the Masters for just the top 16 to collectively constitute a four-headed "Majors" system. This would shift emphasis away from just the one huge event a year and be a fairer system of sorting the very best from the best.


Also, it would help to globalise the sport as the "Crucible" event and the UK Championship could stay in the UK but the other two majors could travel. The Chinese could play their major at their own Crucible like venue.

Andy Spark wrote:

mantorok wrote:

Andy Spark wrote:All this emphasis on just one tournament a year is an unfortunate thing. Snooker would be much, much better served by changing to a four grand slam model like golf or tennis. I saw that rack pack film by the BBC, didn't even mention the 1983 UK's when Higgins came back from 0-7 against Davis. And this in a film about the Higgins/Davis rivalry!

I disagree, the tournament is a true test of consistency, focus, mentality and skill over a long period, I think it's good to have something for players to strive for, anyone who wins it has gone through a lot of pain to achieve it, and having it once a year makes it all the more special.

Any more than 1 like that and you risk diluting its importance, every player wants to be WC, I think it's important to have that pinnacle in such a sport.

I am not suggesting having more than one 17 day marathon a year, but a changing of name/status (possibly from "The World Championships" to "The Crucible") and another one or two best of 17 match events, plus the Masters for just the top 16 to collectively constitute a four-headed "Majors" system. This would shift emphasis away from just the one huge event a year and be a fairer system of sorting the very best from the best.


Also, it would help to globalise the sport as the "Crucible" event and the UK Championship could stay in the UK but the other two majors could travel. The Chinese could play their major at their own Crucible like venue.

And who is to say what event is or isn't a major? Is major status something that is bestowed on a tournament by the governing body? By Hearn maybe?

You can't just create an event out of thin air and then say this event is now a 'major' on a par with 3 others. It just doesn't work that way. To use a tennis example, Wimbledon is not prestigious because it's a Grand Slam, it's a Grand Slam because it's prestigious, if you see what I'm saying.

It's all semantics anyway. There's nothing stopping the Chinese or anybody else from creating a tournament and building it up to rival the World Championship if they wanted to. Sadly, they'd prefer to just import the current one Instead of creating something of their own.

Cloud Strife wrote:

Andy Spark wrote:

mantorok wrote:

Andy Spark wrote:All this emphasis on just one tournament a year is an unfortunate thing. Snooker would be much, much better served by changing to a four grand slam model like golf or tennis. I saw that rack pack film by the BBC, didn't even mention the 1983 UK's when Higgins came back from 0-7 against Davis. And this in a film about the Higgins/Davis rivalry!

I disagree, the tournament is a true test of consistency, focus, mentality and skill over a long period, I think it's good to have something for players to strive for, anyone who wins it has gone through a lot of pain to achieve it, and having it once a year makes it all the more special.

Any more than 1 like that and you risk diluting its importance, every player wants to be WC, I think it's important to have that pinnacle in such a sport.

I am not suggesting having more than one 17 day marathon a year, but a changing of name/status (possibly from "The World Championships" to "The Crucible") and another one or two best of 17 match events, plus the Masters for just the top 16 to collectively constitute a four-headed "Majors" system. This would shift emphasis away from just the one huge event a year and be a fairer system of sorting the very best from the best.


Also, it would help to globalise the sport as the "Crucible" event and the UK Championship could stay in the UK but the other two majors could travel. The Chinese could play their major at their own Crucible like venue.

And who is to say what event is or isn't a major? Is major status something that is bestowed on a tournament by the governing body? By Hearn maybe?

You can't just create an event out of thin air and then say this event is now a 'major' on a par with 3 others. It just doesn't work that way. To use a tennis example, Wimbledon is not prestigious because it's a Grand Slam, it's a Grand Slam because it's prestigious, if you see what I'm saying.

It's all semantics anyway. There's nothing stopping the Chinese or anybody else from creating a tournament and building it up to rival the World Championship if they wanted to. Sadly, they'd prefer to just import the current one Instead of creating something of their own.

Agreed. Hearn said much the same thing actually.

Dan-cat wrote:Conversely, a player can win the WC and still not be considered a great.

Agree, I think Dott and Johnson are the best examples because both didn't win anything else beyond that, Dott just the China Open, nothing else, despite reaching a further two World Finals.

Out of these players nowdays, I think Robbo is definately the one with best chance of being multiple World Champion, 2 or 3 Worlds I think. The others, maybe Selby, but I have doubts he'll win another.

Andre147 wrote:

Dan-cat wrote:Conversely, a player can win the WC and still not be considered a great.

Agree, I think Dott and Johnson are the best examples because both didn't win anything else beyond that, Dott just the China Open, nothing else, despite reaching a further two World Finals.

Out of these players nowdays, I think Robbo is definately the one with best chance of being multiple World Champion, 2 or 3 Worlds I think. The others, maybe Selby, but I have doubts he'll win another.

The best examples are Selby, Robertson and Wiggum.

Selby and Robbo are obviously greats! They've both won all the Triple crown events at least once.
Unless, 'great' means winning all those events on multiple occasions?
In that case, the greats of the game can be listed on the fingers of one hand.
Steve Davis. Stephen Hendry, John Higgins, Ronnie O'Sullivan, Mark Williams.

Yes Jimmy is a great player. Ding is a great player and regarded as one and he may never win a world. Then there are players like Joe Johnson who won a world and was a sh**house

Ronnie79 wrote:Yes Jimmy is a great player. Ding is a great player and regarded as one and he may never win a world. Then there are players like Joe Johnson who won a world and was a sh**house

I still remember watching the 92 final as a lad. I actually cried. That'll haunt Jimmy.

PoolBoy wrote:Selby and Robbo are obviously greats! They've both won all the Triple crown events at least once.
Unless, 'great' means winning all those events on multiple occasions?
In that case, the greats of the game can be listed on the fingers of one hand.
Steve Davis. Stephen Hendry, John Higgins, Ronnie O'Sullivan, Mark Williams.

Ray Reardon.

O'Sullivan will definitely win the World Title for the next 3 years and will overtaken Hendry at this point and will retire having beaten Hendry's record of 7 world titles.

He will then become the next leader of UKIP and win the general election in 2020.

Will he then cure cancer?

SnookerFan wrote:Will he then cure cancer?

I hope not. The world is already overpopulated with human beings.

Dan-cat wrote:

PoolBoy wrote:Selby and Robbo are obviously greats! They've both won all the Triple crown events at least once.
Unless, 'great' means winning all those events on multiple occasions?
In that case, the greats of the game can be listed on the fingers of one hand.
Steve Davis. Stephen Hendry, John Higgins, Ronnie O'Sullivan, Mark Williams.

Ray Reardon.

Perhaps surprisingly, Reardon didn't ever win the UK!

PoolBoy wrote:

Dan-cat wrote:

PoolBoy wrote:Selby and Robbo are obviously greats! They've both won all the Triple crown events at least once.
Unless, 'great' means winning all those events on multiple occasions?
In that case, the greats of the game can be listed on the fingers of one hand.
Steve Davis. Stephen Hendry, John Higgins, Ronnie O'Sullivan, Mark Williams.

Ray Reardon.

Perhaps surprisingly, Reardon didn't ever win the UK!

And Alex Higgins only won it once, but he made it to the final four times.

To be fair to Reardon, the UK championship was first held in 1977. Had it been held between 1970 and 1977 I'm sure Reardon would have won it multiple times.

If Ray Reardon is not considered one of the greats, then I don't know who is. He was the Steve Davis and Stephen hendry of his time.

Holden Chinaski wrote:
To be fair to Reardon, the UK championship was first held in 1977. Had it been held between 1970 and 1977 I'm sure Reardon would have won it multiple times.

If Ray Reardon is not considered one of the greats, then I don't know who is. He was the Steve Davis and Stephen hendry of his time.

Fully agree mate, if Reardon can't be considered a great of the game, then I don't know who is... a 6 times World Champion, and like you said, had the UK Champs been held earlier, he would certainly have won at least 1 title.

Reardon dominated the 70s, Davis the 80s, Hendry the 90s, the 00s were kinda of split by Higgins and Ronnie, MJW too from 2000 to 2003, and the 2010s Ronnie too has won his fair share of Big title, and out of Higgins and Ronnie, the latter who has won the most during this period, especially the Big titles.

When will ronnie play next? not many tournaments he can choose from

Welsh or China Open. didnt qualify for German Master, Players Champ, World Grand Prix. dont think he will play PTC in gydnia

Cloud Strife wrote:You can't just create an event out of thin air and then say this event is now a 'major' on a par with 3 others. It just doesn't work that way.

It can work that way. You can just invent a tournament and state that it is a major. Major status comes from a number of things and history is only one of them. If you have a ranker with a best of 17 frame format then that would be enough for it to acquire a "major" status in a few years, provided the marketing of the event and prize money was also consistent with a "major" status.

masterdoctorgenius wrote:When will ronnie play next? not many tournaments he can choose from

Welsh or China Open. didnt qualify for German Master, Players Champ, World Grand Prix. dont think he will play PTC in gydnia

I'd be surprised if he didn't play the Welsh as his next.

It depends....

Andy Spark wrote:I'd be surprised if he didn't play the Welsh as his next.

I wonder.

He was quite vocal last year that he didn't like the Motorpoint Arena.

There may be one more in Ronnie, maybe. But it's a long tournament and he gets fed up too easily, so probably not. But if anyone can, a genius can.

Master Blaster wrote:There may be one more in Ronnie, maybe. But it's a long tournament and he gets fed up too easily, so probably not. But if anyone can, a genius can.

People have been saying this for at least ten years.