Should there be a maximum break prize in snooker?

SnookerFan wrote:

Monique wrote:
It was 4k not 5k and they did pay him because it was a the highest break of the tournament, not specifically because it was a 147. But he did pot the final black - nothing had been disturbed - and the referee put 147 as the break on the Match sheet. That was Jan's decision and he sticks by it. There is nothing in the rules saying that the match ends with the hand shake.
And he did give it to a charity indeed. Specifically it is shared between Saint Francis Hospice in Havering-atte-Bower and Haven House Childrens Hospice in Woodford.

But there is something in the rules prohibiting a referee from instructing the player on what shot to make, isn't there? Surely Jan saying to Ronnie 'Go on, make the black' is against the rules?

This is disputable as there was no other shot to be played and Jan just said "com'on do it for the fans". Now there is one thing very clear in the rules: the referees decisions are final and Jan's decision was that is was a valid 147. As it is it wouldn't have changed anything because the prize money was for the highest break, not for a maxi, and 140 would have been the highest break also. The "next" break in the tournament being a 135, by Ronnie as well.

Monique wrote:This is disputable as there was no other shot to be played and Jan just said "com'on do it for the fans". Now there is one thing very clear in the rules: the referees decisions are final and Jan's decision was that is was a valid 147. As it is it wouldn't have changed anything because the prize money was for the highest break, not for a maxi, and 140 would have been the highest break also. The "next" break in the tournament being a 135, by Ronnie as well.

I'm not debating that it was a 147, nor am I saying it changed anything. It's gone down in the record books as a 147. The only reason anybody would care either way is if we were a hardcore Ronnie or Hendry fan wanting our player to win the "all important" 147s made competition.

What really made me uncomfortable was Jan's involvement. Because I feel he shouldn't have told Ronnie to make the shot. Okay, he wanted to do it so the fans got to see a 147. It was with the best intentions. But it's not his job to tell Ronnie whether to make a shot or not. Shot selection is the player's responsibility, not the referees. For whatever reason. If Ronnie chose not to make one for the fans, he chose not to make one for the fans. Shouldn't be the referees responsability to tell him to do so.

It didn't take much to get Ronnie to pot the black. Jan just nudged him in the right direction, ensuring he got the best of both worlds: a 147 that counted plus attention drawn to the lack of a prize.

We're getting slightly off topic with this. I mean, what Ronnie did was pretty irrelevant in the long run. We all have opinions on it. But I think it was pretty much discussed by all at the time.

I don't mind having a max prize but I don't see any need to encourage players to chase it.

I'd rather see players making sure they're doing what they need to do to win the game rather than take on an iffy shot chasing some max prize. I just don't think giving players incentive to chase a max is necessarily condusive to good snooker.

Regarding the ref intervention......he shouldn't have said anything and just allowed Ronnie to finish the match as he wished. His job is to ref the game, period. Yes, it didn't take a lot of prodding to get Ronnie to go back and pot it but there shouldn't have been any.

I also spoke with a couple of ex-pros about it and their take was that the max shouldn't count. When Ronnie left the table and shook his opponent's hand that was end of match.

Personally I don't care if they count the max or not but I don't think the ref should've opened his mouth.

Sickpotter wrote:
Personally I don't care if they count the max or not but I don't think the ref should've opened his mouth.

Ill be tweeting Jan Verhass later tonight

barry has to save the money somewhere

Sickpotter wrote:I don't mind having a max prize but I don't see any need to encourage players to chase it.

I'd rather see players making sure they're doing what they need to do to win the game rather than take on an iffy shot chasing some max prize. I just don't think giving players incentive to chase a max is necessarily condusive to good snooker.

Regarding the ref intervention......he shouldn't have said anything and just allowed Ronnie to finish the match as he wished. His job is to ref the game, period. Yes, it didn't take a lot of prodding to get Ronnie to go back and pot it but there shouldn't have been any.

I also spoke with a couple of ex-pros about it and their take was that the max shouldn't count. When Ronnie left the table and shook his opponent's hand that was end of match.

Personally I don't care if they count the max or not but I don't think the ref should've opened his mouth.

Yeah, 147s shouldn't be chased until the frame is won, that's the priority. I saw Peter Ebdon lose a match once, after he'd got to about 40, he'd realised he was on a 147 and went for an all but impossible black, when there were other balls that were a lot easier to pot.

There should be a prize but it's been built up way too much. Hendons blog had a review of the season and there were several comments that went over all the good things in one paragraph and then spent three or four paragraphs giving out about the 147 prize.

KrazeeEyezKilla wrote:There should be a prize but it's been built up way too much. Hendons blog had a review of the season and there were several comments that went over all the good things in one paragraph and then spent three or four paragraphs giving out about the 147 prize.

And that's because of Ronnie's remarkably inane point making at the World Open. It wouldn't have been so bad, but he then came out with; "Oh, I was thinking about qualifiers who don't make as much money as us." The qualifiers who have a lot more earning potential due to the PTCs, you mean? Wasn't there a case this season, of some qualifiers making more money in November then they had in the whole of the season previously?

The only point Ronnie made was that he's an absolute bell-end, but because it's Ronnie everybody remembers it likes it's a fantastically good point, and is more important then anything else.

I think there should definitely be a rollover jackpot for all the ranking events. Though the 147000 prize at the Crucible was always something special, it was all part of the mystique attached to a maximum in Sheffield.

I like the idea of a rollover jackpot.

Something like 10k and add 10k to the pool after each event where no one notched a max.

That combined with the normal high break prize should be sufficient incentive to try for a max but not so much that the pros would go for it without the frame safe.

Sickpotter wrote:I like the idea of a rollover jackpot.

Something like 10k and add 10k to the pool after each event where no one notched a max.

That combined with the normal high break prize should be sufficient incentive to try for a max but not so much that the pros would go for it without the frame safe.

as a player would the cash add the incentive or a personal satisfaction is the incentive.....

im sure the cash does add incentive to cockerel up a frame but if the balls was there would you pot a pink instead of the black ?

Sickpotter wrote:I like the idea of a rollover jackpot.

Something like 10k and add 10k to the pool after each event where no one notched a max.

That combined with the normal high break prize should be sufficient incentive to try for a max but not so much that the pros would go for it without the frame safe.

If the player played their Power Snooker card before the frame, the break prize could be doubled.

Wild wrote:

Sickpotter wrote:I like the idea of a rollover jackpot.

Something like 10k and add 10k to the pool after each event where no one notched a max.

That combined with the normal high break prize should be sufficient incentive to try for a max but not so much that the pros would go for it without the frame safe.

as a player would the cash add the incentive or a personal satisfaction is the incentive.....

im sure the cash does add incentive to cockerel up a frame but if the balls was there would you pot a pink instead of the black ?

and your point is

of course regardless of cash or no cash a player would play the black if it was on and continue to go for the 147 if he wasnt jeopardising the frame.

Witz78 wrote:

Wild wrote:

Sickpotter wrote:I like the idea of a rollover jackpot.

Something like 10k and add 10k to the pool after each event where no one notched a max.

That combined with the normal high break prize should be sufficient incentive to try for a max but not so much that the pros would go for it without the frame safe.

as a player would the cash add the incentive or a personal satisfaction is the incentive.....

im sure the cash does add incentive to cockerel up a frame but if the balls was there would you pot a pink instead of the black ?

and your point is

of course regardless of cash or no cash a player would play the black if it was on and continue to go for the 147 if he wasnt jeopardising the frame.

so if there was money on it would they jeopardize the frame ?

Wild wrote:

Witz78 wrote:

Wild wrote:

Sickpotter wrote:I like the idea of a rollover jackpot.

Something like 10k and add 10k to the pool after each event where no one notched a max.

That combined with the normal high break prize should be sufficient incentive to try for a max but not so much that the pros would go for it without the frame safe.

as a player would the cash add the incentive or a personal satisfaction is the incentive.....

im sure the cash does add incentive to cockerel up a frame but if the balls was there would you pot a pink instead of the black ?

and your point is

of course regardless of cash or no cash a player would play the black if it was on and continue to go for the 147 if he wasnt jeopardising the frame.

so if there was money on it would they jeopardize the frame ?

Quite possibly yes. It's been done in the past....someone mentioned Ebdon losing a frame trying for a low percentage black with easier colors available.

IMO the only real reason to go for the max should be the accomplishment itself, any money should be seen as a nice bonus.

I think it's quite possible that reducing the money on offer for 147s could lead to more of them being made for the right reason, the accomplishment. I know it's a bit out there theory wise but here's my take on it.

The pressure of making a max is huge. Pile on the pressure of maybe seeing more money at one time then you've ever seen before and it can be crushing. Take away the pressure of the huge payday and it's just prestige pressure left to deal with. Not that it makes a max any less challenging but it is one less thing to play on your mind.

I distinctly remember Ebdon going crazy in an attempt to make a maximum against Ronnie O'Sullivan in the quarter-finals of the 2001 World Championship. He lost back to back frames on 64 or something like that, kept making life difficult just to get on the black.

going for maximums are a new phenomenon its not adding to the snooker its just a bonus if it happens but if i never seen another it wouldn't bother me.

I gotta say Ronnie's stunt of calling out the max after the first red was probably the nail in the coffin for huge max bonuses.

Certainly there have been quite a few in the last few years but I think Ronnie's sealed it.

Don't get me wrong, by no means do I think the man do it on command but he certainly gave that impression to those who used to insure against it happening.

Kind of ironic that a gesture intended to highlight that there was no max prize would contribute to it's demise.

Tubberlad wrote:I distinctly remember Ebdon going crazy in an attempt to make a maximum against Ronnie O'Sullivan in the quarter-finals of the 2001 World Championship. He lost back to back frames on 64 or something like that, kept making life difficult just to get on the black.

I don't think it was that match that I was referring to. I think it was more recent then that, though a good three or four years ago now. I honestly can't remember who he was playing, or the tournament. I just seemed to remember him playing and missing a difficult black before the frame was won, when a blue would've been a near-certainty. The commentators gave him a lot of aggro, due to him being 3 or 4-0 down already, and desperately needed a frame win any way he could.

Kind of surprising for Ebdon, who in that situation, would tend to slow it down and grind it out and take what he can.

Sickpotter wrote:I gotta say Ronnie's stunt of calling out the max after the first red was probably the nail in the coffin for huge max bonuses.

Certainly there have been quite a few in the last few years but I think Ronnie's sealed it.

Don't get me wrong, by no means do I think the man do it on command but he certainly gave that impression to those who used to insure against it happening.

Kind of ironic that a gesture intended to highlight that there was no max prize would contribute to it's demise.

I think the only reason why it gets mentioned at all, was due to that moronic point making. Which is why it keeps getting brought up in this conversation.

Personally, I don't think it's that big a deal. And I'm actually against massive bonusses for it. £1000 for a maximum prize seems sufficient to me. (And not splitting it in the rare occasion somebody makes another one.) People acting like a player should get tens of thousands of pounds, seems over the top for me. Maybe back in the day where a player would be lucky to get one his whole career. But more players have got one in professional play then haven't now, so they aren't the rare thing they used to be.

In a sport that's not that affluent at this point in time, I don't see how spreading the prize money across the whole tournament is seen as worse as a big cash prize kept in reserve in case people get a 147. Maybe when snooker becomes more affluent, and we are in a position to increase all round prize money and offer a 147 prize, then cool. Especially as it's probably not a popular idea with potential sponsors.

i can half understand players wanting money for a 147 but for the life of me i cant understand it from a fans point of view to make a twitter campaign

they wont be spending any of it

This is what Dave Hendon says on his blog today (among other things)

One thing I do feel is a shame, though, is the axing of the 147 bonus prize because this devalues the achievement of making a maximum in the eyes of the public. The £1,000 per tournament rolling prize that myself and others have advocated is surely worth investigating, particularly as any sponsor of such a bonus pool would get considerable exposure.

I and others would advocate for it don't ask for BIG bonusses, we ask for a special prize, for a special achievement, which a 147 is.
People go about how "common" it has become ... well... Murphy never had one, Selby had just one and it wasn't in a major event. So?

And BTW the year with most maximum was 1999.

Its pretty simple.......

The players are less likely to attempt 147s if theres not a cash prize

The fans still want to see 147s being made so if theres a prize up for grabs then the chances are they will be more likely to see a 147



As for £1,000 for a 147 haha thats hardly gonna motivate players. Its buttons. Ronnies disgust at the 4k prize at the World Open said it all. Id have a minimum 5k high break prize per tournament and also a minimum 2k rolling 147 additional prize so that come the time someone makes a 147 then theyll be reimbursed decently.

As for the 147 prize at the WC being axed, i dont see why that has to be the case, Sure maybe the 147,000 is excessive but it was coming from the sponsors anyway, and its not as if this year the prize money went up because there wasnt a high break prize. The WC winners prize has been 250k for about 15 years now with no increase, infact im sure it was actually up at 270k around a decade ago before dropping.

A 50k prize at the WC would at least still offer a great incentive for players to sacrifice a frame in order to have a bash at staying on a 147 chance.

Wild wrote:i can half understand players wanting money for a 147 but for the life of me i cant understand it from a fans point of view to make a twitter campaign

they wont be spending any of it

Well, that's it. I think there is an over-obsession with player's earnings from some areas of the internet. Of course we want prize money up, so the sport can survive. But, the way some people go on, it's like learning the exact amount a player gets payed is the main reason for tuning in.

At the end of the day, money makes the World go round. Do I believe that players will be more willing to pass up the opportunity of a maximum if there's no financial incentive? Absolutely.

Though Ronnie's carry on at the World Open was a little idiotic in my opinion, I do think there's got to be some financial reward for a maximum. I'd have a minimum prize of £5000, with £1000 being added to the pot each tournament. Cap it at around £20,000.

For the World Championship, I'd have around £50,000 plus whatever the jackpot stands at. So anywhere between 50 grand and 70 grand...

Witz78 wrote:Its pretty simple.......

As for £1,000 for a 147 haha thats hardly gonna motivate players. Its buttons. Ronnies disgust at the 4k prize at the World Open said it all. Id have a minimum 5k high break prize per tournament and also a minimum 2k rolling 147 additional prize so that come the time someone makes a 147 then theyll be reimbursed decently.

Surely, this says more about him then it says about anything else. I understand what you're saying about money motivating them, they've got to make a living. But at the same time, it can cause people to forget why they got into the game in the first place. Sure, Ronnie has made a lot of 147s in his career, compared to others (except Hendry), but does this mean he is right to suggest; "Oh, would I only get £4,000 for making a 147? Is that all?" Making a 147 should be the greatest thrill for a snooker player, and a chance to make yourself a piece of history. But the fact he's made so many of them now, he only wants to make them if there's a huge cash reward for doing so, doesn't mean that applies to every player, does it?

Do we think a player should have opportunities to earn prize money? Of course. Does that have to include a massive bonus for a 147? Not necessarily.

Snookerfan wrote:But the fact he's made so many of them now, he only wants to make them if there's a huge cash reward for doing so

That's bull mate. He's the only guy who really went for a maximum at the Crucible this year, and there was no massive prize money. He really went all out twice against Dominic Dale in an effort for a maximum. Graeme Dott turned down a much better opportunity when he had the frame all but wrapped up and played for a blue.

Tubberlad wrote:At the end of the day, money makes the World go round. Do I believe that players will be more willing to pass up the opportunity of a maximum if there's no financial incentive? Absolutely.

that is very very very sad and one of the reasons barry hearn felt like banging his head against a brick wall last season.