Post a reply

Which one would you prefer?

2x World, 0x UK , 0x Masters
11
79%
1x World, 1x UK, 1x Masters
3
21%
 
Total votes : 14

2 Worlds vs 1 Triple Crown

Postby TheRocket

If you had the opportunity to choose whether you'd like to end your career as a Double World Champ without any UK's and Masters though and as the second choice to win all of the Triple Crowns once, which option would you choose?

Which one you think is the bigger achievement? Let's say, Bingham wins another World title without winning a UK or Masters. Would you put him ahead of Murphy then who has won all Triple Crowns once?

Re: 2 Worlds vs 1 Triple Crown

Postby Cheshire Cat

Triple Crown for me.

Winning the Worlds alone is an incredible achievement, but the likes of Dott and Bingham, even if they won multiple Worlds, wouldn't be on someone like Murphy's level in my eyes.

No disrespect to those players, I mean Bingham played incredibly to win the Worlds, but as a contemporary who's lived and watched through this era of snooker, in years gone by i'll remember the likes of Murphy more than I will Bingham and I suppose that's because Murphy is the more consistent player, and he's produced the goods multiple times on the biggest stages.

Re: 2 Worlds vs 1 Triple Crown

Postby Dan-cat

But if Bingham won two Worlds? You'd think differently I think.

Interesting and fairly niche question. I can't think of any double world champions who do not have triple crown.

Re: 2 Worlds vs 1 Triple Crown

Postby Cheshire Cat

I guess it's one of those 'opinion-y' things.

If someone were to win multiple Worlds but couldn't win one TC, i'd have to ask the question as to why. They'd be a great in my eyes, but to not win a UK and Masters as well, they'd be quite a big underachiever.

EDIT: You posting in the wrong thread, had me thinking that i'd posted in the wrong thread! <laugh>

Re: 2 Worlds vs 1 Triple Crown

Postby MarkoPiet

Only five players have won multiple world titles during the Crucible era. On the other hand, ten players have won the big three. That's why I think winning two world titles is a bigger achievement.

Winning the World Championship is the ultimate goal. It's not the only goal - get to tour, make it to the top 64, qualify for the Crucible, win a tournament... Winning the World Championship is, however, the biggest achievement a player can achieve. Doing it twice is a bigger one and one has to be really special to achieve it.

The World Championship is by far the most prestigious tournament especially after what's happened to the UK Championship. Only the best of the best have been able to won multiple world titles. That's why it's in my opinion a bigger achievement. One must be a great player to win the worlds, one must be a great player to win multiple ranking titles but one must be an outstanding player to win multiple world titles. The way I see it is that the Masters and the UK Championship aren't much more prestigious than the rest of the events - I'd actually categorize the International Championship into the same group than the UK and the Masters (but the World Championship is in a league of its own). You might see it differently with a different historical background of the BBC and all that, I personally don't see the glory of the Triple Crown to the same extent than most of the Brits seem to see.

Re: 2 Worlds vs 1 Triple Crown

Postby Cheshire Cat

I would take the Triple Crown myself, but yes, I don't deny that many players on tour would probably take 2 Worlds. Multiple Worlds is some achievement.

I guess i'm still not sure why anyone would undervalue the Triple Crown though. When someone wins the UK at the start of the season, the question is always 'will they win the TC in one season?' It happened with Robbo this year, it happened with ROS the year before and it'll happen for many years to come; it's still important, in my opinion.

Now, can we have another player win the Triple Crown in one season? That would be an achievement! MJW was something special to do that. :win:

Re: 2 Worlds vs 1 Triple Crown

Postby SnookerFan

I'd personally go one of each.

Though, the World Championships is obviously the most watched and most recognised tournament. Winning the title twice would probably been seen as preferable to some people, I'm sure.

Re: 2 Worlds vs 1 Triple Crown

Postby PoolBoy

Interestingly. only 7 players have been multiple World Champions PLUS Triple-Crown winners!
Obviously, the 'big four' of Ronnie O'Sullivan, Steve Davis, John Higgins and Stephen Hendry.
But also, Alex Higgins, Mark J Williams and Mark Selby....

Selby, for me, is now in the Top 10 all-time snooker players list, possibly top 8.

Re: 2 Worlds vs 1 Triple Crown

Postby KrazeeEyezKilla

Any player who has the mentality to win two World titles will want a Masters or UK Title too. The only way I could see the first option happening is if a player had a bogey run at the other two losing several finals like Parrott at the Masters.

Re: 2 Worlds vs 1 Triple Crown

Postby KrazeeEyezKilla

MarkoPiet wrote: The way I see it is that the Masters and the UK Championship aren't much more prestigious than the rest of the events - I'd actually categorize the International Championship into the same group than the UK and the Masters (but the World Championship is in a league of its own). You might see it differently with a different historical background of the BBC and all that, I personally don't see the glory of the Triple Crown to the same extent than most of the Brits seem to see.


The International Championship might overtake the UK or Masters eventually but for now I'd put on a level with the Welsh Open except more lucrative. The main problem with it is having the first round played thousands of miles away. The 2014 tournament didn't have the defending champion or the World Champion and last year didn't have the first ever champion. Plus Ronnie, Selby and Robertson have won 12/15 big 3 events in the last five years. None of them have won an IC.