Should the World Championship Format be Reduced?

the current frames format is perfect any reduction will damage the worlds

GJ wrote:the current frames format is perfect any reduction will damage the worlds

damage the sport that's whats disturbing.

Wild wrote:more than anything else this "disturbing topic" as you put it so well is a topic that should be put to bed once and for all.

keeping this format alone is the only thing that would help barry turning snooker around and people would overall accept changes to other events.

the only reason they reduced the WC from the BO 61 frames etc was for TV and since they done that the WC has contributed to the best matches by far in the history of the sport so theres no sense in reduction its worked well for TV and consistantly has brought snookers highest ever ratings from peak 4 channel 1980s to multi medis era today.

best of 5s WO was not for me but i accept the change and it made that tournament different and same with the shootout that worked well.

but for them to succeed you got to give the sport history the World Championship gives it.

One of the best comments I've ever read - one of the reasons why I dont like change is because it makes it hard to compare, I mean Ronnie O'Sullivan winning 10-6 in the UK Final? - Makes a 16-9 scoreline in the 1992 final seem a pulverising, - whereas based on the maths 10-2 being 16-3, 10-4 being 16-6, 10-5 being 16-8, 10-6 being 16-10, 10-7 being 16-12, 10-8 being 16-14, 10-9 being 16-15 - it can be done but it makes it such harder to compare, I mean - winning 46 frames to become UK Champion is a feat, - but compared to 70 it makes it look like a sprint

I mean Robertson has been credited with defending his title when he won the WO, compared to 2009 he won 10 frames less,

The issue with making it smaller in comparison is how many matches will have changed? A best of 25 frame final would have seen White win in 1992 and 1994, Davis win in 1985, Stevens in 2000 and Hendry in 2002.

A Best of 17 frame final would have made 2004 a 9-7 affair instead of 18-8, whereas 2003 would have been 9-2 rather than 18-16.

PLtheRef wrote:

Wild wrote:more than anything else this "disturbing topic" as you put it so well is a topic that should be put to bed once and for all.

keeping this format alone is the only thing that would help barry turning snooker around and people would overall accept changes to other events.

the only reason they reduced the WC from the BO 61 frames etc was for TV and since they done that the WC has contributed to the best matches by far in the history of the sport so theres no sense in reduction its worked well for TV and consistantly has brought snookers highest ever ratings from peak 4 channel 1980s to multi medis era today.

best of 5s WO was not for me but i accept the change and it made that tournament different and same with the shootout that worked well.

but for them to succeed you got to give the sport history the World Championship gives it.

One of the best comments I've ever read - one of the reasons why I dont like change is because it makes it hard to compare, I mean Ronnie O'Sullivan winning 10-6 in the UK Final? - Makes a 16-9 scoreline in the 1992 final seem a pulverising, - whereas based on the maths 10-2 being 16-3, 10-4 being 16-6, 10-5 being 16-8, 10-6 being 16-10, 10-7 being 16-12, 10-8 being 16-14, 10-9 being 16-15 - it can be done but it makes it such harder to compare, I mean - winning 46 frames to become UK Champion is a feat, - but compared to 70 it makes it look like a sprint

I mean Robertson has been credited with defending his title when he won the WO, compared to 2009 he won 10 frames less,

The issue with making it smaller in comparison is how many matches will have changed? A best of 25 frame final would have seen White win in 1992 and 1994, Davis win in 1985, Stevens in 2000 and Hendry in 2002.

A Best of 17 frame final would have made 2004 a 9-7 affair instead of 18-8, whereas 2003 would have been 9-2 rather than 18-16.

some would argue players approach shorter matches differently and i agree it gives room to maneuver but if i was a player id find shorter matches much easier to deal with.

when you in a 4 session best of 35 match with Ronnie O'Sullivan in the opposite seat its a daunting prospect even if you leading Ronnie 7-1 after the first session its still daunting because we all know what he can do with enough time left to do it and the same thing about all the top players.

PLtheRef wrote:

Wild wrote:more than anything else this "disturbing topic" as you put it so well is a topic that should be put to bed once and for all.

keeping this format alone is the only thing that would help barry turning snooker around and people would overall accept changes to other events.

the only reason they reduced the WC from the BO 61 frames etc was for TV and since they done that the WC has contributed to the best matches by far in the history of the sport so theres no sense in reduction its worked well for TV and consistantly has brought snookers highest ever ratings from peak 4 channel 1980s to multi medis era today.

best of 5s WO was not for me but i accept the change and it made that tournament different and same with the shootout that worked well.

but for them to succeed you got to give the sport history the World Championship gives it.

One of the best comments I've ever read - one of the reasons why I dont like change is because it makes it hard to compare, I mean Ronnie O'Sullivan winning 10-6 in the UK Final? - Makes a 16-9 scoreline in the 1992 final seem a pulverising, - whereas based on the maths 10-2 being 16-3, 10-4 being 16-6, 10-5 being 16-8, 10-6 being 16-10, 10-7 being 16-12, 10-8 being 16-14, 10-9 being 16-15 - it can be done but it makes it such harder to compare, I mean - winning 46 frames to become UK Champion is a feat, - but compared to 70 it makes it look like a sprint

I mean Robertson has been credited with defending his title when he won the WO, compared to 2009 he won 10 frames less,

The issue with making it smaller in comparison is how many matches will have changed? A best of 25 frame final would have seen White win in 1992 and 1994, Davis win in 1985, Stevens in 2000 and Hendry in 2002.

A Best of 17 frame final would have made 2004 a 9-7 affair instead of 18-8, whereas 2003 would have been 9-2 rather than 18-16.

nonsense to say that after the event. If the winning post is set beforehand in a match then closing it out when the finishing line approaches becomes an issue whether its a 1 frame shooout, a best of 9 or the WC final

Wild wrote:

GJ wrote:the current frames format is perfect any reduction will damage the worlds

damage the sport that's whats disturbing.

about time this daft topic was closed.

Hearn is a man of his word, trust him when he says he wont tinker with the WC format.

The new ranking sytem has already reduced the prestige of being #1 but reducing the worlds would be a travesty. Potential winners could no longer be held with the same respect and introduces the possibility of a 'fluke' world champion. We had one of those in 2010.

boris_the_butcher wrote:The new ranking sytem has already reduced the prestige of being #1 but reducing the worlds would be a travesty. Potential winners could no longer be held with the same respect and introduces the possibility of a 'fluke' world champion. We had one of those in 2010.

the "being number 1" for a whole season was a nonsense, its still a prestigious target for players to aim for, even if it might just be for a few months. Those who havent been number 1 should be aiming to play well, win matches, win tournaments then the number 1 ranking might take care of itself and they can join the small elite list of those to have been ranked number 1.

and id also scrap the farce of the defending WC always being number 1 seed at the Crucible too, sod tradition, the number 1 seed should be the number 1 ranked player at that time.

Interesting that this has been discussed for months, and now there are rumours of the UK's being shortened. Is it a case of scare mongering, or do people think there's no smoke without fire? In five years time will all tournaments be shortened, or will we look back and wonder what all the fuss was about?

SnookerFan wrote:Interesting that this has been discussed for months, and now there are rumours of the UK's being shortened. Is it a case of scare mongering, or do people think there's no smoke without fire? In five years time will all tournaments be shortened, or will we look back and wonder what all the fuss was about?

i wont be looking back to see what all the fuss is about ill be making bucking fuss in a care home at 90 if i remember what i was making a fuss about.

this is truly approaching cockerel up territory if people actually think short=better.

Wild wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:Interesting that this has been discussed for months, and now there are rumours of the UK's being shortened. Is it a case of scare mongering, or do people think there's no smoke without fire? In five years time will all tournaments be shortened, or will we look back and wonder what all the fuss was about?

i wont be looking back to see what all the fuss is about ill be making little kittens playing with each other having fun fuss in a care home at 90 if i remember what i was making a fuss about.

this is truly approaching cockerel up territory if people actually think short=better.

So you're admitting you're 90 in 5 years time

Bourne wrote:So you're admitting you're 90 in 5 years time