Post a reply

Do you consider the IC a major?

Postby SnookerFan

It does have long matches and decent prize money.

But it was announced as a major the first year it was made. I always thought prestige came also through tournament history.

What are your thoughts?

Re: Do you consider the IC a major?

Postby Wildey

This "MAJOR" Tag is something the BBC has played on in the last 10 or 15 years.


Before you had tournaments and each and every one as important as the last.


Supporting Hendry i couldn't give a toss what he won as long as after the tournament he was with a trophy.


Yea the World Championship was very special but i preferred him winning 5 others than 1 World like say Joe Johnson or Ken Doherty did during their respected seasons as World Champion.

Re: Do you consider the IC a major?

Postby LC

The three current "majors" define in my mind who are the greatest players ever with Hendry leading on 18, the list basically shows who has been the best players of all time.

Re: Do you consider the IC a major?

Postby SnookerFan

LC wrote:The three current "majors" define in my mind who are the greatest players ever with Hendry leading on 18, the list basically shows who has been the best players of all time.


Is the UK as much of a major now it's shortened matches?

Re: Do you consider the IC a major?

Postby LC

SnookerFan wrote:
LC wrote:The three current "majors" define in my mind who are the greatest players ever with Hendry leading on 18, the list basically shows who has been the best players of all time.


Is the UK as much of a major now it's shortened matches?

Still the best of 11 which lifts it above most events, and has a long history behind it

Re: Do you consider the IC a major?

Postby SnookerFan

LC wrote:Still the best of 11 which lifts it above most events, and has a long history behind it


Feels like a sleight of hand somehow.

They shorted the UKs from best of 17, to best of 11. Then shortened most other tournaments to best of seven, to make the shortened UKs to look less short. <laugh>

Re: Do you consider the IC a major?

Postby Dan-cat

SnookerFan wrote:
LC wrote:Still the best of 11 which lifts it above most events, and has a long history behind it


Feels like a sleight of hand somehow.

They shorted the UKs from best of 17, to best of 11. Then shortened most other tournaments to best of seven, to make the shortened UKs to look less short. <laugh>


The UK is still in the triple crown and players treat it as a major and so should we. 'Welcome to the club' said Robbie to Smurph when he got decimated by him at the master last year. If Ronnie won the UK, Masters and WC in one season us Ronnie fans would in raptures about the achievement.

But not the IC.

Re: Do you consider the IC a major?

Postby Wildey

Dan-cat wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:
LC wrote:Still the best of 11 which lifts it above most events, and has a long history behind it


Feels like a sleight of hand somehow.

They shorted the UKs from best of 17, to best of 11. Then shortened most other tournaments to best of seven, to make the shortened UKs to look less short. <laugh>


The UK is still in the triple crown and players treat it as a major and so should we. 'Welcome to the club' said Robbie to Smurph when he got decimated by him at the master last year. If Ronnie won the UK, Masters and WC in one season us Ronnie fans would in raptures about the achievement.

But not the IC.

So if Ronnie won The World, Masters and IC you wouldn't give a rubbish?

Re: Do you consider the IC a major?

Postby Andre147

Wildey wrote:
Dan-cat wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:
LC wrote:Still the best of 11 which lifts it above most events, and has a long history behind it


Feels like a sleight of hand somehow.

They shorted the UKs from best of 17, to best of 11. Then shortened most other tournaments to best of seven, to make the shortened UKs to look less short. <laugh>


The UK is still in the triple crown and players treat it as a major and so should we. 'Welcome to the club' said Robbie to Smurph when he got decimated by him at the master last year. If Ronnie won the UK, Masters and WC in one season us Ronnie fans would in raptures about the achievement.

But not the IC.

So if Ronnie won The World, Masters and IC you wouldn't give a rubbish?


I know I would!!! <ok> The UK still has history behind it though, but nevertheless and even though this "Major thing" was something that the BBC "created" in the early days because those were the main tournaments they broadcasted, if there's 4 Majors nowadays in Snooker, those have to be the IC, UK, Masters and Worlds.

But this is diferent to say Golf or Tennis. In those, the Majors have the same format (more or less). In Snooker, they just don't, and The Masters is not even a ranker.

Re: Do you consider the IC a major?

Postby SnookerFan

We're having two seperate conversations here. One is, "Is the IC a major?", and the second is; "Are any tournament worthy of a major status?"

Re: Do you consider the IC a major?

Postby SnookerFan

Cloud Strife wrote:It's a major if Ronnie wins it, otherwise it's a no from me.


We don't consider a tournament a major, if you post about it. :wave:

Re: Do you consider the IC a major?

Postby Wildey

Dan-cat wrote:Of course I would, but it wouldn't be the triple crown.

I Dont consider it a triple Crown no such thing in Snooker

Re: Do you consider the IC a major?

Postby Dan-cat

Well, it exists in the sense that... it exists.


Triple Crown (snooker) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_Crown_(snooker)

The Triple Crown is a collective term used for the three most prestigious snooker tournaments: the World Championship, the UK Championship and the Masters. These tournaments are sometimes also called snooker's major tournaments, the big three BBC events, or simply as the big three. There are ten players who have won all Triple Crown events at least once: Steve Davis, Terry Griffiths, Alex Higgins, Stephen Hendry, John Higgins, Mark Williams, Ronnie O'Sullivan, Neil Robertson, Mark Selby and Shaun Murphy. Only Davis, Hendry and Williams have won all three Triple Crown events in a single season, and Hendry is the only player to achieve this feat twice, in the 1989/1990 and 1995/1996 seasons. In 2013 Robertson became the first player from outside the British Isles to have won all three events.

Re: Do you consider the IC a major?

Postby Wildey

its a term used in the last 10 or 15 years never herd that said in the 80s or 90s....

Re: Do you consider the IC a major?

Postby Cloud Strife

Wildey wrote:
Cloud Strife wrote:It's a major if Ronnie wins it, otherwise it's a no from me.


you prove my point on another thread absolutely brilliantly viewtopic.php?f=620&t=6834&p=442089#p442089

THANKS <ok>


The terms 'major' and 'triple crown' is bullocks anyway. All tournaments are important, obviously some more important than others, but I don't like how these terms somehow bestow on certain events a sense of superiority over other events.

The UK is seen as a 'triple crown' event, but does that make it more 'major' than say for instance the IC? Certainly doesn't feel that way.

Re: Do you consider the IC a major?

Postby Dan-cat

The BBC probably invented that term 'Triple Crown'... I bet Clive Everton knows. I might ask him on Twitter.

Re: Do you consider the IC a major?

Postby Dan-cat

Cloud Strife wrote:The UK is seen as a 'triple crown' event, but does that make it more 'major' than say for instance the IC? Certainly doesn't feel that way.


Well... for me the BBc coverage, including features and interviews with the players, Barry Hearn usually in attendance at some point, decent crowds, Christmas time in York, way more buzz from the players and chat on Twitter... all adds up to making it seem more important that the IC.

Re: Do you consider the IC a major?

Postby Cheshire Cat

The fact remains that past players held the Worlds, UK & Masters in high regard and that tradition continues on to the players of today.

The International is a 'Major' in as much as the abysmal new ranking system makes it one, because of the enormous $$$ it pays. I have no problems with the money involved in the game now, it's how money is directly proportionate to ranking that's a load of dross.

Re: Do you consider the IC a major?

Postby PLtheRef

Joining this debate rather later than intended but finally got round to getting my thoughts down.

To those downplaying or even questioning the ideas of majors I think the question needs asking - what would a player prefer? A series of best of 7s or best of 9s before an 11 frame semi and a 17 frame final or a UK Championship or two?

With regards to the International Championship - I think its got an elevated edge to the other ranking events (Heaven forbid the BBC come back to having four regular terrestrial events - this would be my likely guess as the one they'd go for) but major events aren't manufactured. You don't create a tournament with the intention of it becoming games fourth or fifth major.

The World Championships, The Masters and The UK Championships didn't start directly as major events - (the first World Championships saw some matches being played as the end to a session of billiards, the Masters was seen to be behind Pot Black and the UK Championships initially was open only to players with a British Passport) - but all three developed over time to become the major events.

The reasons why the International's got an elevated edge to the other events are clear in terms of the prize money it pays out (a good run here can certainly limit damage in a poor season) and the comparatively longer distances in terms of playing Best of 11 frames in the early stages - the cynic in me here seems to think that the best of 11 format was more to do with appeasing those who were unhappy with the UK Championships changing to Best of 11 for the early stages. I wonder whether if this was an event being set up in 2015 or 2016 after the dust on the UK Cull had been allowed to settle would the format for the early stages be best of 11 or would it have been best of 9 like the other events held in China.

The best of 21 final that Hearn seemed to suggest early on unsurprisingly didn't materialise in the same way that the best of 25 Champion of Champions Final didnt, but even so it's been pleasantly surprising to see (touch wood) - that even though the Semi-Finals of the UK Championships also went to Best of 11 in 2014 - the Semi-Finals of the International has remained as Best of 17 (and long may it be so)

So, a leading ranking event - certainly ahead of the others it is - but a major? I'm not convinced. Like I said, you don't get a manufactured major.

Re: Do you consider the IC a major?

Postby Andre147

PL so from what I understand, your point is History and Prestige is more important, not a "manufactured" Major like this IC seems to be.

Let me ask you something then: if the IC still exists on the calendar in 15 years time with the same format, can it be considered a Major then?

Re: Do you consider the IC a major?

Postby PLtheRef

Andre147 wrote:PL so from what I understand, your point is History and Prestige is more important, not a "manufactured" Major like this IC seems to be.

Let me ask you something then: if the IC still exists on the calendar in 15 years time with the same format, can it be considered a Major then?


With the same format possibly - but there's probably more to it than that.

There have been plenty of long lasting ranking events, which have spanned well over 10-15 year timeframe, e.g. British Open, old Grand Prix, the original International Open - none of which would be described as a major event compared to the Triple Crown.

A longlasting International Championship with a similar format will increase its prestige no doubt but to become a major, it'll need to become the prime target of the players outside of the Triple Crown events.

Re: Do you consider the IC a major?

Postby TheSaviour

Well yes, the Worlds, UK & Masters are the Majors. All these other tournaments are a bit of nonsense. But even so, I didn´t want to post anything last night even when I was delighted when Judd managed to, in my opinion, surprise the great Shaun Murphy. Even if the bookies took the the opposite opinion, and I understood that very well since I did have a clue Judd was going to fly. But Shaun´s still the better player if you ask me. But Judd being doing so well for a some time now, so the bookies were right. They are not ALWAYS right. But if you find a good odds with almost a locked winner then it is like lottery win. Just from nowhere a major lottery win, IF you just have a balls to execute when the situation arrives. So even the bookies are not always correct, and that´s fine to everyone because it makes a possible to win a lottery win. Obviously bookies are trying their best, like we all are. Actually winning demands so much even if the odds would not be right. Actual winning is still so difficult. That´s just one reason the current bookies are doing very well. You can talk and you can calculate and you can have the knowledge and wisdom, but can you actually execute when the situation arrives? Or handling the winning situation reasonably?

I didn´t want to post anything because Shaun was obviously furious with the result. (to Shaun): touchy subject?? Got it. He was disappointed to lose because it is just his job. He was supposed to win, so he felt awful feeling he had abandoned his job. It´s nothing that´s much more complicated or serious. Shaun has probably got over it now, so I can post this now. I was on a free fall after Judd´s win. Great victory to him! And with what a style. He was dead and buried 3-5 down when race to 6. Knocked few tons to level it.

Well. 11 years and counting. I feel I have already contributed enough. Many really crazy ideas over the years. But it is time some other people to make it happen. It is not a bad idea at all.
Last edited by TheSaviour on 03 Nov 2016, edited 1 time in total.


   

cron