Post a reply

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

UK
15
36%
Masters
27
64%
 
Total votes : 42

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

Postby TheRocket

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fmZJ5U3FXM

Interesting debate about the Triple Crown/Majors just a few days ago with Hearn and Hendry. And as you can see. Hendry speaks about his career and the importance of the World/Masters/UK. And for him the Masters is bigger than the UK Championship. He "prioritized the World, then the Masters, then the UK".

Quite interesting. And remember. At that time the UK was played in multi session format, the UK final was even played in a bo31 format in Hendrys early career (until 1991).

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

Postby Andre147

Yes Hendry always saw The Masters as the 2nd biggest event, even when he won the UK in it's longer format with the Final best of 31.

I think for me it's the 2nd biggest tournament after the UK's format reduction.

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

Postby snucar

Andre147 wrote:Yes Hendry always saw The Masters as the 2nd biggest event, even when he won the UK in it's longer format with the Final best of 31.


Major bullocks. This is Hendry in all his magnificent cunt-ish glory. It still hurts him the fact he never managed to overtake Davis' record in the UK Championship and because he held the record at the Masters up until recently. I have a vast collection of articles of those days from the newspapers and I did a bit of homework after I've heard him say that odd nonsense. I found NONE of him saying such a silly thing back in the day. I'll tell you more. Back in those glory days, there wasn't even the term "triple crown" as it is today. It was mostly Worlds and UK. The Masters was still important and prestigious of course but it was NOWHERE near the other two because it was simply...a money game. The Masters gained importance during the dark years in the mid 00s because it was one of the very few tournaments who still carried important prize money. This is why I will never warm to someone like Hendry and this why the majority of fans never saw him with a good eye. Great player but sometimes a very sad individual. Even when Davis retired he found it hard to make a real compliment to his greatest rival, there's always sarcasm and irony when it comes to Davis. Buck him.

The Masters over the "Players Championship"? The UK beats the Masters in every aspect. The only thing the Masters has going for it is the fact it's based in a metropolis like London and therefor it's easier attract more and a far richer crowd. Without the Londoners White and Ronnie, what would the Masters be? Yup, just a money game.

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

Postby PoolBoy

The UK has to rate as a bigger tournament.
Competitive ranking snooker will always be better than invitational competitions.

The Masters is an invitational competition - no more; no less.
It's of little significance. 112 of the 128 Tour professionals aren't allowed to play in it!

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

Postby Pink Ball

PoolBoy wrote:The UK has to rate as a bigger tournament.
Competitive ranking snooker will always be better than invitational competitions.

The Masters is an invitational competition - no more; no less.
It's of little significance. 112 of the 128 Tour professionals aren't allowed to play in it!

:love:

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

Postby Andre147

If given the choice, I would have prefered Ronnie to win the UK Final this season than the Masters one.

However, I don't care much about that, at lest he did win the Masters and is now the leader of one of the TC events, and it's fitting the 3 greatests players of all time each have their own record in each of those 3 events.

The UK Champs is nowhere near what it was since 2010 and that is a fact. Still the 2nd biggest ranking event of course.

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

Postby KrazeeEyezKilla

snucar wrote: The Masters gained importance during the dark years in the mid 00s because it was one of the very few tournaments who still carried important prize money.


It was a pretty big event in the mid-90's when I started watching Snooker. I'm not sure what it was like before then and I wonder what it was like during the 80's. At that time ITV covered three ranking events and when the World Doubles ended started covering the World Matchplay which was like a longer format Masters which in it's first year had bigger prize money. With so many events covered on mainstream TV in a era with only a few channels I can imagine the Masters not being as big a deal as it would be later.

Several things happened in the space of about a year around 92-93. ITV dropped their Snooker coverage and although Sky took their place it wouldn't have anywhere near the audience figures. The Rothmans sponsorship of the Grand Prix ended and from what I've read the tournament never had the same prestige after. Then of course the UK final was cut to best of 19. While all these events took hits the Masters went through a long run of memorable and dramatic finals. The 97 & 98 finals were the standout matches as a child and it led on to a lot of 10-9 finals, Doherty's missed 147, Paul Hunter's wins and Ronnie's clashes with Higgins and Selby. And for most of this time was held in a venue which looked amazing on TV. The UK was still a huge event as well with many memorable moments but the Masters was having a real golden age without as big a shadow from the past hanging over it. This helped to nail it down as a big event.