SnookerFan wrote:Remember that time when The Crucible was on, Stephen Fry came on and sets the following riddle; "Who has won the most snooker World Championships? It's not who you think....."
Everybody spends ten minutes trying to work out what clever trick meant that it wasn't Joe Davis, before Fry comes back on and goes; "It was Joe Davis. Hey. Hey?"
Iranu wrote:Remember it? You don’t give us a chance to forget it!
The dead frames were nearly always played out in those days as the paying public expected to see their full quota of FIVE frames per session in those days.PLtheRef wrote:Withers second round defeat came a time where all of the frames were played. I'm fairly sure had it been just best of 31 that Joe would have won the match in a whitewash
SnookerEd25 wrote:Badsnookerplayer wrote:That is a great stat from the 1937 match. It would seem that Joe was feeling quite ruthless.
I looked the match up too and was surprised how many frames Withers scored relatively highly given the result.
http://cuetracker.net/tournaments/world ... p/1937/941
I would have expected far more very one sided frames.
Just a thought - they played out 'dead' frames in those days (IE in a best of 35, all 35 frames would be played regardless of when one player hit 18); did they also play out 'dead' points as well? IE, if a player was, say 65 behind with 35 on, the frame would continue until the final black had been potted? Not necessarily, the player far behind playing for Snookers, but maybe more that it was somehow seen as ungentlemanly to concede a frame, so they saw playing it out as potting practice? I don't know for sure, but it would explain some of the higher scores. I bet Clive knows...