elnino wrote:Reading Snooker World Records entries suggests that breaks of only 147 are classified as a Maximums.
Scores greater than 147 are recorded as 16 red ball clearances and simply called highest breaks.
Yes but wouldn't a 155 break be classed as a maximum too?
What if two players, A makes 147, B makes 155, both receive the prize? Or only the 147 one?
I thought that PLtheRef's answer was concise and cleared up the matter, but I will go ahead and add my tuppence to the conversation...
"Maximum" is not defined within the Rules of Snooker; instead, it is simply a dictionary definition. As I see it, there are two possible "Maximums" in Snooker, at least as far as scoring points in a break are concerned. For instance, there is no "Maximum" possible score for any individual frame.....players may continue to foul and award penalty points ad infinitum. I once played in a frame in which nearly 200 points were scored by the end.
A "Maximum" in standard circumstances, as we all know, is 147. And that leaves only a "Maximum" in special circumstances, which, as I think we all also know is 155. There are no other possible "maximums".
I think the primary question here seems to be, "How is the prize money to be divvied up?" and that is not really a question for the Rules. Instead, it is a question for either the governing body and/or the tournament officials. I have no documentation so this is only my opinion, but I believe that a High Break prize and/or a Maximum prize used to be awarded by the sponsor of any given tournament however they saw fit (but probably within WPBSA guidelines or recommendations). The quality of the players became so good that the Maximum prize became an expensive proposition so the sponsors dispensed with it or made it a fairly low value...essentially, just the high break prize. We all probably also know of Ronnie famously refusing to pot black as a protest to the low or no Maximum prize, at least temporarily. The cooler mind of the referee (I believe it was Jan) prevailed, saying, in essence, "Ronnie, do it for the fans." So, I believe, at that point the WPBSA stepped in to say that the sponsors of each tournament would contribute to a running fund, whether or not the Maximum Break prize was awarded in any given tournament. Thus, the jackpot would build larger and larger until someone won it, and at that point, the prize fund would presumably return to its starting nominal value, I assume that being contributed by the WPBSA.
So to finally bring this around to the point at hand, per my assumptions above, I believe if within a tournament TWO Maximums are achieved, whether they be 147 or 155 in any order, the first Maximum would receive the larger value, built up prize fund. Unfortunately, the second Maximum would also receive a prize, but it would only be whatever the nominal starting value of the new fund. I have no idea what that starting value may be, if anyone may care to enlighten us on that detail.
In theory at least, the "Race to the Maximum" could literally be like a horse race...when the venue is set in multiple table mode and there are matches going on everywhere, imagine two tables right next to each other and two of the players get into position for a possible maximum! Who will be the first to pot the final black? It may be the difference between a £100,000 prize or a mere £10,000 (or whatever).
To repeat, all of the above is only my opinion, not backed up with actual documentation or evidence. It is also possible that the WPBSA has not even considered the possibility of two Maximums within a tournament, or the precedence of a 155 or any other possible related conundrum, so Dan, you may have inadvertently forced some people to put on their thinking caps and consider how to handle the possible situations before they actually do occur.