Ronnie's one "Triple Crown" each season - coincidence?

Ronnie's habitual (over the last eight years anyway!) exactly one triple crown win each season...

Is this coincidence or psychology?

Andy Spark wrote:Ronnie's habitual (over the last eight years anyway!) exactly one triple crown win each season...

Is this coincidence or psychology?

I don't buy all this 'triple crown events'. The World Championships are way ahead in terms of importance and the UK is now just a run of the mill event since they changed the format in 2013.

Talk of the triple crown is fairly new. If BBC still had the grand prix but not the UK then that would be the triple crown.

The world's matter 10 fold over the rest.

mick745 wrote:Talk of the triple crown is fairly new. If BBC still had the grand prix but not the UK then that would be the triple crown.

The world's matter 10 fold over the rest.

Absolutely.

I remember every World Championships played since I was about 11 with ease, and many matches in the early rounds I can recall comfortably. However, I have to look on the internet to remind myself of UK Championships. The event is simply mundane nowadays.

I television stages should be the last 16 onwards and best of 17 in every round. And the final best of 31.

It's a coincidence.

vodkadiet wrote:

mick745 wrote:Talk of the triple crown is fairly new. If BBC still had the grand prix but not the UK then that would be the triple crown.

The world's matter 10 fold over the rest.

Absolutely.

I remember every World Championships played since I was about 11 with ease, and many matches in the early rounds I can recall comfortably. However, I have to look on the internet to remind myself of UK Championships. The event is simply mundane nowadays.

I television stages should be the last 16 onwards and best of 17 in every round. And the final best of 31.

Very interesting, but not exactly "on topic". I could pontificate...

The fact is Ronnie believes in the "triple crown" and his record over the last eight years is unusually consistent. Unusual enough for me to think there is some weird psychology going on.

mick745 wrote:Talk of the triple crown is fairly new. If BBC still had the grand prix but not the UK then that would be the triple crown.

The world's matter 10 fold over the rest.

Spot on.


I Cant pin point when this triple crown thing started but definitely in the last 10 to 15 years and over resent years infact after the UK was shortened its intensified so much Probably their way to try and Justify the UK as still a Major Event and different to others when it clearly to any fool its not any more.

For me the UK Decline started in 1993 and its been deteriorating ever since.

Wildey wrote:

mick745 wrote:Talk of the triple crown is fairly new. If BBC still had the grand prix but not the UK then that would be the triple crown.

The world's matter 10 fold over the rest.

Spot on.


I Cant pin point when this triple crown thing started but definitely in the last 10 to 15 years and over resent years infact after the UK was shortened its intensified so much Probably their way to try and Justify the UK as still a Major Event and different to others when it clearly to any fool its not any more.

For me the UK Decline started in 1993 and its been deteriorating ever since.

Well, I agree about the recent origin of the "triple crown". Do I like it? No! However, It's out there.

I checked wikipedia and the page for Snookers Triple Crown has been there since the 17th April 2007. It was called an unofficial term until November 2013.

Andy Spark wrote:Ronnie's habitual (over the last eight years anyway!) exactly one triple crown win each season...

Is this coincidence or psychology?

Match fixing?

Who cares when the Triple Crown term became popular. It's a thing now and it has been for some time. Everyone wants to win those events.

Triple Crown is just a term to conceptualize the 3 biggest and most prestigious Snooker events because no matter whatever happens outside of the Triple Crown, the Worlds, Masters and UK have always been here since their inception, every other tournament can get cancelled, taken out, replaced, but these 3 will always be here and Snooker's greatest champions have won it multiple times to make it the most prestigious events.

Anyway it's a bit psychological. It's like Nadal winning at least one Grand Slam for 10 years. You just want to keep winning one when you're on a roll.

Andy Spark wrote:Ronnie's habitual (over the last eight years anyway!) exactly one triple crown win each season.

A true sign of decline.

In all seriousness, it is an amazing feat.

The UK and Masters are overrated. The UK was a great tournament, the Masters is a load of overhyped twiddle and always has been.

The Masters has always been one of my favourite tournaments. So many great matches have been played in The Masters. Some fantastic finals.

Erza Scarlet wrote:Triple Crown is just a term to conceptualize the 3 biggest and most prestigious Snooker events because no matter whatever happens outside of the Triple Crown, the Worlds, Masters and UK have always been here since their inception, every other tournament can get cancelled, taken out, replaced, but these 3 will always be here and Snooker's greatest champions have won it multiple times to make it the most prestigious events.

That makes no sense. Every tournament on the calendar has been here since it’s inception

As I see it the biggest problem with the “triple crown” is that all the events are in one country. If you are serious about making the game more global then you can’t have the three biggest tournaments in the same country.

Andy Spark wrote:As I see it the biggest problem with the “triple crown” is that all the events are in one country. If you are serious about making the game more global then you can’t have the three biggest tournaments in the same country.

Some might say a few big tournaments in China are more important now than thr UK.

But every player aims to win at least one of the TC events in a season, so yeah despite format not being great its still the 3 biggest ones on the calendar.

China open has more prize money and a tougher format now. It's bigger achievement than the UK.

Heck, this new top 8 cup in Llandudno is too. With the long format and needing the consistency over a year to qualify.

When you win the UK Championship you are winning a tournament that has been won by Hendry, Davis, Alex Higgins and John Virgo. With the Masters you have Reardon and Spencer. There's no other tournament that has that. With time the likes of the China Open, Shanghai and the Tour Championship might overtake them but not far a while yet.

China do not see these as the triple crown. China Open and IC will out dwarf the UK soon

KrazeeEyezKilla wrote:When you win the UK Championship you are winning a tournament that has been won by Hendry, Davis, Alex Higgins and John Virgo. With the Masters you have Reardon and Spencer. There's no other tournament that has that. With time the likes of the China Open, Shanghai and the Tour Championship might overtake them but not far a while yet.

Davis, Higgins, etc al won it when it had a different format. The tournament is different now. Any long running event is going to be won by some big names. By your logic the Welsh open with its palmares including Hendry, Doherty, O'Sillivan, Hunter, J Higgins, Williams, Davis, Selby etc is bigger than the International championship or China Open today. Self evidently this is absurd. The UK is no longer that special.

Alex0paul wrote:China do not see these as the triple crown. China Open and IC will out dwarf the UK soon

Give them proper coverage like the UK events have because I don't think that many people care about IC. the final had 4 pages on here.

HappyCamper wrote:

KrazeeEyezKilla wrote:When you win the UK Championship you are winning a tournament that has been won by Hendry, Davis, Alex Higgins and John Virgo. With the Masters you have Reardon and Spencer. There's no other tournament that has that. With time the likes of the China Open, Shanghai and the Tour Championship might overtake them but not far a while yet.

Davis, Higgins, etc al won it when it had a different format. The tournament is different now. Any long running event is going to be won by some big names. By your logic the Welsh open with its palmares including Hendry, Doherty, O'Sillivan, Hunter, J Higgins, Williams, Selby etc is bigger than the International championship or China Open today. Self evidently this is absurd. The UK is no longer that special.

I agree, the UK isn't what it used to be, all thanks to that idiot Barry Earn.

But it's still way more prestigious than any Chinese event. And speaking of those, I don't understand why the International Championship and the China Open were kept as rankers and the Shanghai Masters was turned into a non-ranker. The Shanghai Masters is better than the other 2 in my opinion.

Alex0paul wrote:That makes no sense. Every tournament on the calendar has been here since it’s inception

Learn to read the rest of the post.

"every other tournament can get cancelled, taken out, replaced, but these 3 will always be here". Worlds, UK and Masters have always been here as the 3 biggest majors and will continue to do so. Every other tournament can be liable to be replaced or totally get the sack but this won't ever happen to the Triple Crown events. They have too much history which adds up to its prestige for that.

Erza Scarlet wrote:

Alex0paul wrote:That makes no sense. Every tournament on the calendar has been here since it’s inception

Learn to read the rest of the post.

"every other tournament can get cancelled, taken out, replaced, but these 3 will always be here". Worlds, UK and Masters have always been here as the 3 biggest majors and will continue to do so. Every other tournament can be liable to be replaced or totally get the sack but this won't ever happen to the Triple Crown events. They have too much history which adds up to its prestige for that.

Complete tosh.

All events only last as long as they are commercially viable. A major sponsor or broadcaster pulling the plug is enough to sound the deathknell for any tournament although admittedly it does seem unlikely to happen for those three. But you can never say never.

mick745 wrote:Complete tosh.

All events only last as long as they are commercially viable. A major sponsor or broadcaster pulling the plug is enough to sound the deathknell for any tournament although admittedly it does seem unlikely to happen for those three. But you can never say never.

Any tournament apart from the Triple Crown events. Given the fact that Hearn said UK is the 2nd major and the prize money will be raised next year, it'll always be here to stay because of its prestige. Even with the shorter format the UK has lasted because it IS the second major after the Worlds.

You can think whatever you want about the Triple Crown events (not surprising since Ronnie beat the record and made the Hendry fans mad), but they're the 3 biggest majors in Snooker viewed by the majority and always have been. The UK will never ever go away.

Any event sponsored by Pukka Pies should not be called a triple crown event

Rightly or wrongly, ask any player out there what he'd rather win: a UK Championship, broadcast by the BBC and ES, or a big chinese event, say China Open or IC, even if they offer more money?

The answer is players will always say they'd rather win a TC event like the UK, and/or Masters and Worlds. You may not like it, I don't like the reduced format, but the UK still is the 2nd most important ranking event because all players would rather win that one.

If the sport is played by the players and they all say they would rather win the UK, who are we to say the other events are more important? They aren't, unless players start saying an event in China is more important than the UK Champs, which probably will never happen.