Snooker Overdrive wrote: Andy Spark wrote: Cloud Strife wrote: Skullman wrote:
Andy Spark wrote:Ronnie seems to be winning his recent matches easily, Ding isn't. If there is indeed to be any "changing of the guard" then the signs aren't really there in the fashion of their respective match victories, also in terms of the status of the events there is a gulf. Ding hasn't done anything in the recent majors, Ronnie has.
Majors, as plural? Ronnie's won one recently. Plus these days, the IC means as much as the UK, and don't try using the history excuse, because if you cared about history you'd give this tournament more respect, considering it has more than every tournament bar the majors.
I consider the IC as a major now, so yes Ding has already won a major this season, as far I'm concerned.
The IC isn't a major, the triple crown events are still the triple crown events. There has already been an egregious manipulation of statistics by exploding the number of rankers a season while treating them as having the same status as previous rankers. We should not repeat the mistake with majors by producing another sprint event and referring to it as a major.
I agree with that.
I'm not a traditionalist as far as certain tournaments go. Times change, look at the UK Championship for instance, only a fool would say that event is still as prestigious as it once was. If in 10 years time the UK is held in a shed in someone's back garden would it be still considered a major?
And who came up with the term 'the Triple Crown'? Is that the official terminology to describe the WC, Masters and UK?
And Andy Spark, stats in snooker are mostly useless anyway, especially 'major' wins, mainly because there are no official majors in snooker like there are in tennis and golf. The term 'major' in snooker has been created mainly by the fans and media.
Statistics can be fun to compile and speculate over, if you're of that persuasion, but they are not the be all and end all.