Post a reply

UK Championship vs Masters. Which one would you rate higher?

UK
15
43%
Masters
20
57%
 
Total votes : 35

UK Championship vs Masters. Which one would you rate higher

Postby TheRocket

The Snooker World Championship is obviously the most important tournament in Snooker.

After that we have the other two majors, the UK Championship and the Masters, and generally the UK is viewed as the second most important tournament in Snooker but there is not a small number of people including Snookerplayers who probably wouldn't agree with that as the Masters, despite not being a ranker is just a class tournament of his own with a special atmosphere and prestige as well as we only have top 16 players being allowed to play in it.

And with the UK being played in a best of 128 format now with a best of 11 length till the final it has lost a lot of reputation in my eyes.


So what do you think?

Re: UK Championship vs Masters. Which one would you rate hig

Postby AC or LT?

The Orer of Merit of them for me is Worlds, Masters, International Championship, UK Championship, Champion of Champions for me now since they took away the best of 17 semis. Back in the best of 17 all through days that was Worlds, UK, Masters - just how badly the UK's been treated - it's still a great tournament but it needs to be a two session from the start event, if this means play L128 and L64 as cubicle qualifying do it - it'd make the event more prestigious in my opinion.

Re: UK Championship vs Masters. Which one would you rate hig

Postby Andy Spark

Now it is probably Masters.

They ruined the UK's when they took away the best of 17's. :-( Maybe Judd would have won the title if his cue ball had stopped two inches shorter in the last frame. You usually get these "ifs and maybes" with sprint events. Some people call it exciting, but it's only exciting if the stakes are high and once you increase the amount of luck then the stakes drop as the roll call of winners becomes more random.

Then people use the argument of "strength in depth" to justify the more "surprising" results and lack of dominance by an individual or two. The evidence does not really support this argument, or at least it is more complicated than portrayed. If strength in depth created more surprising results then tennis would have more surprising results than snooker because the strength in depth in tennis is far in excess of snooker, there being far more money in tennis. "Surprises" are not really created by an increase of strength in depth because relative skill levels in sport always correspond to a normal bell shaped distribution, which means there should always be one or two individuals out in front. It is the luck factor in formats and sport that creates the surprises; strength in depth can strongly influence the luck factor but the relationship to surprise results is indirect.

Re: UK Championship vs Masters. Which one would you rate hig

Postby The Cueist

vodkadiet wrote:Masters is miles ahead of this joke event.

The UK was on a level with The Masters when they played best of 17 in every match, and then a best of 31 frame final.


For once vodka I fully agree with what you say there.

It has been diluted as it were by the apparent lack of sufficient frames required by the players in this event.

It was second only to the World Championships in that this tournament required nearly as many frames to be won as it would for a player to win the world title .

As an example at 10 - 9 the event was concluded with the maximum 19 frames of the final played.
When you compare this with the best of 29 frame semi final and 31 frame final .

The 10 - 9 pales into just over half the frames required to have won when it was better set up and matches would swing back and forth .

It was a lot more of a marathon to win this tournament ,Experience would sometimes wipe out potting machines .

The longer frames would show the contrasting styles of all manner of players and the different tactics.
Which players could get a second wind when they were
Multiple frames adrift.

The safety battles , The more flukes as the law of average would come into play.

Uk Championship was a lot more multi-faceted than it is now .

I can't see it ever being restored to it's former glory which is a great shame.

This format it has now is only serving to wind up the malcontent in the snooker fan faithful who pay their money and travel the country to watch top pro snooker.

I don't think I would be wrong in saying that amongst the snooker fan faithful " Traditionalists " who like most of us who post on snooker forum's want the UK returned to the second biggest test of the top player's .

I mean the format protesting by all of us , Well nearly all of us just on this forum must let Barry Hearn and co
Know not to tinker with the World Championship.

I don't beleive it should be altered in format and location.

It is the biggest tournament in snooker and does not need to be moved from it's now spiritual home of the crucible theatre , Sheffield .

I for one would not bother with it if that ever changes .

I am in full agreeance with the mal-content snooker fan public on the UK Championship and it's dilution .

Still never sits right in stature to what it once was .

Re: UK Championship vs Masters. Which one would you rate hig

Postby roy142857

The UK for me, can't quite say why, I think the small number of players involved is what sways me against the Masters - although in some respects all 2 year + players are involved as players have to qualify, so it's not just an exhibition! It's close enough for me that I might be persuaded the other way if qualification was more dependent on current (or at least, one year) form rather than 2 year form. Or a qualification tournament for the last place.

Re: UK Championship vs Masters. Which one would you rate hig

Postby kolompar

UK for me too, don't really like the Masters. Only 16 players, and even though it's supposed to be only the elite there are always players like Milkins or Mavis there. I find the UK much more interesting with the new flat 128 format too.
And the Masters also has best of 11s so I don't get what's everyone going on about.

Re: UK Championship vs Masters. Which one would you rate hig

Postby The Cueist

kolompar wrote:UK for me too, don't really like the Masters. Only 16 players, and even though it's supposed to be only the elite there are always players like Milkins or Mavis there. I find the UK much more interesting with the new flat 128 format too.
And the Masters also has best of 11s so I don't get what's everyone going on about.


Fair enough , Maybe you never witnessed the UK Champs in it's former glory .?

Maybe you did ?

It is mainly to do with the amount of frames played to win these days as compared to years ago.

Not half as good these days.

Hey maybe I'm stuck in the past a bit !!!!!! J!!!!!!!

Just preferred it as a tournament and for years the tournament was held in preston on a two table set up .

The 1983 comeback of Higgins would never have happened in the new format because of only needing ten frames to win.

Back then players would need six more frames to win.

This is why there is a lot of us who disagree with the current format.

Re: UK Championship vs Masters. Which one would you rate hig

Postby vodkadiet

The Cueist wrote:
kolompar wrote:UK for me too, don't really like the Masters. Only 16 players, and even though it's supposed to be only the elite there are always players like Milkins or Mavis there. I find the UK much more interesting with the new flat 128 format too.
And the Masters also has best of 11s so I don't get what's everyone going on about.


Fair enough , Maybe you never witnessed the UK Champs in it's former glory .?

Maybe you did ?

It is mainly to do with the amount of frames played to win these days as compared to years ago.

Not half as good these days.

Hey maybe I'm stuck in the past a bit !!!!!! J!!!!!!!

Just preferred it as a tournament and for years the tournament was held in preston on a two table set up .

The 1983 comeback of Higgins would never have happened in the new format because of only needing ten frames to win.

Back then players would need six more frames to win.

This is why there is a lot of us who disagree with the current format.


It has been dumbed down. It reminds me of how test cricket has been shoved on to the back burner to make way for one day cricket. I used to like cricket, but now I only follow The Ashes.

Re: UK Championship vs Masters. Which one would you rate hig

Postby The Cueist

That is good comparisin , Again shortened the game
Took all the thrills out of it for fans. ?

I like you enjoy a proper test match , The ebb and flow.
The thrill of the comeback innings and the chase of innings by the respective national teams.

Traditions are being lost and the fabric is eroding in the circles of power that govern our sports the world over.

I agree it is a great pity and devalues my enjoyment of watching these sports .

I have a triple cd of tbe magical 2005 Ashes and I watch them every few years .

Great times and as a cricket lover I have to admit that Shane Warne was prolific in his bowling that was just magic and it was on channel 4 not pay a bomb for sky sports.

I think we all know that eventuslly commercial advantages for each sport will lead them towards that path.

Gone are the days when you could watch the cricket on the beeb I just wonder how long snooker will stay .

Bear in mind that F1 has now gone to sky.

I think given what we have seen in the last decade in snooker and all sports in general that everythg is on offer to the highest bidder.

Or am I just a cynic ?!!!!!!!! J!!!!!!

Re: UK Championship vs Masters. Which one would you rate hig

Postby TheSaviour

I voted the UK Championships. It is a much more tougher and difficult to come through the field and win the tournament there than at the Masters. So I feel there are a much more healthy competition and spirit regardless how many players are participating. Some top-16 players might be just happy and satisfied that they are allowed to compete and participate at the Masters. And that´s it. They say "well I tried my best and now everything is okay". But I always say No, it´s not okay. Unless your name happens to be Ronnie O´Sullivan and you win almost every tournament you enter with your current form..

Re: UK Championship vs Masters. Which one would you rate hig

Postby PLtheRef

For me now it has to be the Masters tournament. Much of what made the UK Championships

In the Masters tournament you have to rise from a field which includes the best players in the sport. Now with the rolling rankings you can guarantee that the players which go to Ally Pally to compete there are currently the best 16 players in the world. To win it you've got to in theory defeat a minimum three top eight players, four if you happen to be unseeded for the Masters. That's what makes the Masters special (even if it's not truly an invitational tournament)

Yes in the UK Championships now if you want to win it, you have to come through a flat draw which includes every single professional player at the moment, but in a situation where there is no actual draw conducted, and you are matched with your polar opposite in terms of ranking which do - We saw 15 of the top 16 seeds in York make it through the first round and of those 13 of them won either 6-0, 6-1 or 6-2. - Yes, you can say anyone can beat anyone on their day but I don't think it does much good for the tournament to have a first round where the top players usually bash their lower ranked opponents.

It'd be far better to do a first round draw and at least have a random opponent in the first round. If they need something to make it stick out from the others then make it so that in theory the second round draw would be seed 1 v seed 64, seed 2 v seed 63 etc.
Last edited by PLtheRef on 14 Dec 2014, edited 1 time in total.

Re: UK Championship vs Masters. Which one would you rate hig

Postby PLtheRef

TheSaviour wrote:I voted the UK Championships. It is a much more tougher and difficult to come through the field and win the tournament there than at the Masters. So I feel there are a much more healthy competition and spirit regardless how many players are participating. Some top-16 players might be just happy and satisfied that they are allowed to compete and participate at the Masters. And that´s it. They say "well I tried my best and now everything is okay". But I always say No, it´s not okay. Unless your name happens to be Ronnie O´Sullivan and you win almost every tournament you enter with your current form..


Are you saying that for every other professional a first round exit at the masters isn't good enough but for Ronnie it doesn't matter?

Which of the following do you think a top 16 will be disappointed more with?

A 6-5 First Round defeat at the Masters?

or

A 6-5 Second Round defeat at the UK Championship?

Re: UK Championship vs Masters. Which one would you rate hig

Postby Skullman

PLtheRef wrote:
To win it you've got to defeat a minimum three top eight players, four if you happen to be unseeded for the Masters. That's what makes the Masters special (even if it's not truly an invitational tournament).


Despite this technically not being true (if the top 8 loses?), I agree that the Masters is a better tournament.

Although I'm not sure that the UK needs to change the seeding format. I honestly don't mind if the top players come through easily in the last 128 because those stages are typically a distant memory by the time the tournament ends and usually don't really impact people's decisions on whether a tournament was good or not.

And I much prefer the top players coming through easily early on than them losing to some player who inevitably doesn't follow it up and we end up boring last 16 matches or quarters where you're thinking if only Ding/Selby/Robbo/Judd hadn't lost...

Re: UK Championship vs Masters. Which one would you rate hig

Postby Snooker Overdrive

Tough question.

Before Hearn shortened the format the UK was the bigger event. The Masters has caught up since then. But there's one thing going against the Masters. The Champion of Champion and the upcoming World Grand Prix are very similar to the Masters, meaning that it now isn't quite as unique as it once was.

Currently I rate the Masters slightly higher than the UK but at the end of the day there isn't much between the two. For example I said before the UK started that I would prefer Ronnie winning the UK over the Masters this season because he has been waiting for another UK crown for so long.

Re: UK Championship vs Masters. Which one would you rate hig

Postby PLtheRef

Snooker Overdrive wrote:Tough question.

Before Hearn shortened the format the UK was the bigger event. The Masters has caught up since then. But there's one thing going against the Masters. The Champion of Champion and the upcoming World Grand Prix are very similar to the Masters, meaning that it now isn't quite as unique as it once was.

Currently I rate the Masters slightly higher than the UK but at the end of the day there isn't much between the two. For example I said before the UK started that I would prefer Ronnie winning the UK over the Masters this season because he has been waiting for another UK crown for so long.


Then again the Masters is the only traditional format non ranking tournament which is exclusively decided by the ranking system alone. To gain entry to the Champion of Champions you simply have to win one tournament. One good week and regardless of how you do for the rest of the season pans out. For entry to the World Grand Prix you need to be among the highest earners for that season.

Re: UK Championship vs Masters. Which one would you rate hig

Postby vodkadiet

Snooker Overdrive wrote:Tough question.

Before Hearn shortened the format the UK was the bigger event. The Masters has caught up since then. But there's one thing going against the Masters. The Champion of Champion and the upcoming World Grand Prix are very similar to the Masters, meaning that it now isn't quite as unique as it once was.

Currently I rate the Masters slightly higher than the UK but at the end of the day there isn't much between the two. For example I said before the UK started that I would prefer Ronnie winning the UK over the Masters this season because he has been waiting for another UK crown for so long.


The COC and The World Grand Prix will never be recognised in the same way as The Masters. Lest we forget The COC made way for a mickey mouse football event midweek, it shows you in what esteem that event is held in!

Snooker's pecking order:

World Championships


The Masters





The UK
















Champion of Champions

Re: UK Championship vs Masters. Which one would you rate hig

Postby vodkadiet

Snooker Overdrive wrote:
vodkadiet wrote:Given the field this year, I would rename 'The Champion of Champions', 'The Champion of Non Champions'.


More like "The Champion of Champions and Non Champions"


Exactly! it will never be a Masters.

Re: UK Championship vs Masters. Which one would you rate hig

Postby Snooker Overdrive

vodkadiet wrote:
Snooker Overdrive wrote:
vodkadiet wrote:Given the field this year, I would rename 'The Champion of Champions', 'The Champion of Non Champions'.


More like "The Champion of Champions and Non Champions"


Exactly! it will never be a Masters.


There are plenty of non champions at the Masters :wave: