Post a reply

Should there be prize money for a 147 break?

Yes
8
73%
No
1
9%
Not bothered
2
18%
 
Total votes : 11

Should there be a maximum break prize in snooker?

Postby Roland

A new campaign has started on Twitter to get prize money back for a 147, I assume during televised events although it says "all major ranking snooker tournaments". I've not idea who is behind this http://twitter.com/#!/147maxi but it's got people talking.

What are your views?

Personally I liked what they did with the 9 darter in darts a few years back where there was a prize fund which rolled over event by event until someone made one. There aren't that many 147s around contrary to popular belief, so I don't see the harm in putting a couple of grand aside each tournament to build up over time until one is made and then winner collects and you start again from scratch.

But who pays? That's the question and it's probably why there is currently no 147 prize. Maybe Ali Carter and Ronnie O'Sullivan both making 147s at the Crucible in 2008 kicked started the downfall of the prize. It gave the impression that they are commonplace when they're not. When was the last televised 147? Ronnie's protest 140 in the World Open? That was nearly a year ago.

Re: Should there be a maximum break prize in snooker?

Postby Witz78

Yeh there should be as without that carrot of a cash incentive the players will sacrifice a 147 attempt to make sure they win the frame as a priority quite rightly.

Who pays? well the sponsors of each event throw in even just 5k and this rolls over to the next event and so on till its claimed.

Re: Should there be a maximum break prize in snooker?

Postby Wildey

the maxi price is a bonus its not wages you cant rely on making one in a career therefore having the rich players making a fuss regarding the price for it is in poor taste.

yes its a achievement to make one surely to hell cash is not the driving force on that.

for the WC Its been 147,000 for years and they have payed out almost a million on 147 in the last 20 years.

a idea came to me while i was against players and fans campaigning to make the rich richer why not if a 147 is made the cash goes in to a fund that will help the young players down the rankings with the increased traveling expenses the sport has now.

i honestly cant see the benefit for the sport if ronnie has more in the bank and young players cant afford to get to europe or Chinese to Britain.

players like Igor Figueredo who been talk he cant afford to come over next season to play after losing a backer..

Re: Should there be a maximum break prize in snooker?

Postby Wildey

well its not entertainment then ....,any one see the buzz jimmy got from making one in the legends cant remember him mentioning cash on any of his million tweets.

Re: Should there be a maximum break prize in snooker?

Postby Casey

The last 147 was Hendry at the Welsh Open :happy: :bowdown:

A 147 at the WC should bring a prize of at least £100k. Aside from the prestigee and what is on the line at the WC, the fact the players were playing for £157k in one frame added to the pressure and tension of the feat. it just wasn't the same this year.

Re: Should there be a maximum break prize in snooker?

Postby Monique

Yes there should. A maxi remains special and as Mark Williams highlighted at the Crucible this year the fact that the prize money has disappeared means most players wouldn't be bothered to attempt them, while it is still a big buzz for the crowd. Actually himself said he wouldn't and that Ronnie seemed to be the only one still trying to for them... the interview is still somewhere on this site.
Earlier in the season, various players, including Hendry said there should indeed be a special prize for a special feature. Not necessarily a huge prize, nothing like the £147000 of the past, but something.

Re: Should there be a maximum break prize in snooker?

Postby Wildey

Casey wrote:The last 147 was Hendry at the Welsh Open :happy: :bowdown:

A 147 at the WC should bring a prize of at least £100k. Aside from the prestigee and what is on the line at the WC, the fact the players were playing for £157k in one frame added to the pressure and tension of the feat. it just wasn't the same this year.

you see i dont get that money this money that just makes me sick to the stomach who really cares its a achievement surely making one in the WC is the thing or just making one full stop.

i want more cash for winners even last 32 last 48 so that young players can afford to play the sport.

Re: Should there be a maximum break prize in snooker?

Postby Witz78

Wild wrote:the maxi price is a bonus its not wages you cant rely on making one in a career therefore having the rich players making a fuss regarding the price for it is in poor taste.

yes its a achievement to make one surely to hell cash is not the driving force on that.

for the WC Its been 147,000 for years and they have payed out almost a million on 147 in the last 20 years.

a idea came to me while i was against players and fans campaigning to make the rich richer why not if a 147 is made the cash goes in to a fund that will help the young players down the rankings with the increased traveling expenses the sport has now.

i honestly cant see the benefit for the sport if ronnie has more in the bank and young players cant afford to get to europe or Chinese to Britain.

players like Igor Figueredo who been talk he cant afford to come over next season to play after losing a backer..


isnt that rewarding mediocrity :john:

why not go the whole hog and any top 16 or wealthy player who earns money at a tournament has to give it all away to the guys at the bottom of the rankings.

Either that or why not just split the £6million prize fund for the season between the 100 pros right now, thats 60k each and let the season be one long exhibition <doh>

Re: Should there be a maximum break prize in snooker?

Postby Witz78

Wild wrote:
Casey wrote:The last 147 was Hendry at the Welsh Open :happy: :bowdown:

A 147 at the WC should bring a prize of at least £100k. Aside from the prestigee and what is on the line at the WC, the fact the players were playing for £157k in one frame added to the pressure and tension of the feat. it just wasn't the same this year.

you see i dont get that money this money that just makes me sick to the stomach who really cares its a achievement surely making one in the WC is the thing or just making one full stop.

i want more cash for winners even last 32 last 48 so that young players can afford to play the sport.


the guys at the top arent even making THAT much money though so why should they be penalised further to let the medocirity below them benefit.

Re: Should there be a maximum break prize in snooker?

Postby Wildey

Witz78 wrote:
Wild wrote:
Casey wrote:The last 147 was Hendry at the Welsh Open :happy: :bowdown:

A 147 at the WC should bring a prize of at least £100k. Aside from the prestigee and what is on the line at the WC, the fact the players were playing for £157k in one frame added to the pressure and tension of the feat. it just wasn't the same this year.

you see i dont get that money this money that just makes me sick to the stomach who really cares its a achievement surely making one in the WC is the thing or just making one full stop.

i want more cash for winners even last 32 last 48 so that young players can afford to play the sport.


the guys at the top arent even making THAT much money though so why should they be penalised further to let the medocirity below them benefit.

its not mediocre you tit its helping players get a foot hold why should there be a bucking campaign so that the richer players gets more bucking money no wander world champions are getting geriatric again.

Re: Should there be a maximum break prize in snooker?

Postby Roland

Don't let your left wing agenda get in the way of how the world really works. A roll over prize fund would do the game good, and whose to say one of the lower ranked players won't pocket the prize? How would you feel then if you had robbed a struggling journeyman of £20,000?

Re: Should there be a maximum break prize in snooker?

Postby Witz78

Wild wrote:
Witz78 wrote:
Wild wrote:
Casey wrote:The last 147 was Hendry at the Welsh Open :happy: :bowdown:

A 147 at the WC should bring a prize of at least £100k. Aside from the prestigee and what is on the line at the WC, the fact the players were playing for £157k in one frame added to the pressure and tension of the feat. it just wasn't the same this year.

you see i dont get that money this money that just makes me sick to the stomach who really cares its a achievement surely making one in the WC is the thing or just making one full stop.

i want more cash for winners even last 32 last 48 so that young players can afford to play the sport.


the guys at the top arent even making THAT much money though so why should they be penalised further to let the medocirity below them benefit.

its not mediocre you tit its helping players get a foot hold why should there be a bucking campaign so that the richer players gets more bucking money no wander world champions are getting geriatric again.



its up to the players down the bottom of the rankings to fight their way to the top where the money is. Since when did you change to being in agreement with Moniques side of the argument anyway rofl

the big money has to stay at the top end of the game, where the stars are, where the games are played at venues, and where the publicity and exposure is.

Re: Should there be a maximum break prize in snooker?

Postby Wildey

bucking joke how would that bucking help if one bucking player pockets the whole shambang rollover money wouldn't it be better to share the cash between 3 or 4 young players rather than award 1 journeyman.

Re: Should there be a maximum break prize in snooker?

Postby Wildey

ok fair enough then so i do not want another debate on here reagarding the cost of travel im looking for alternatives to help those players have some sort of chance and every one to thick to see how selfish you really are.

Re: Should there be a maximum break prize in snooker?

Postby PLtheRef

A £5,000 skins game like Sonny suggested I think would make things interesting. As he's said

The reason why the Maximum Breaks prize were set so high was because hardly anyone made one, there were eight 147s in the entire 1980s - last season there were seven alone. Its coming to a stage where the sponsors bonuses were being bled


1980s average 0.9 max's a season
1990s average 2.9 max's a season
2000s average 3.1 max's a season
2010s average 3.5 max's a season.

When the feat becomes repeated tournament after tournament, then it begins to lose its prestige, when it was one or two a season you still had the same verve. - A £5,000 skin per event (or TV Major) would make it very interesting as quickly you could see reaching £15,000-£20,000.

O'Sullivan underestimated what five grand means to people, especially those who would see five grand as a huge amount of money. It was funny though that they refused to pay him because technically the break was 140 and not a 147.

Re: Should there be a maximum break prize in snooker?

Postby Witz78

Wild wrote:ok fair enough then so i do not want another debate on here reagarding the cost of travel im looking for alternatives to help those players have some sort of chance and every one to thick to see selfish you really are.



your the ones that too thick mate

the maximum break prize and helping out young players expenses are 2 entirely unrelated things as opposite ends of the snooker spectrum so your Robin Hood proposal of robbing the rich to feed the poor is just laughable.

Re: Should there be a maximum break prize in snooker?

Postby Witz78

PLtheRef wrote:A £5,000 skins game like Sonny suggested I think would make things interesting. As he's said

The reason why the Maximum Breaks prize were set so high was because hardly anyone made one, there were eight 147s in the entire 1980s - last season there were seven alone. Its coming to a stage where the sponsors bonuses were being bled


1980s average 0.9 max's a season
1990s average 2.9 max's a season
2000s average 3.1 max's a season
2010s average 3.5 max's a season.

When the feat becomes repeated tournament after tournament, then it begins to lose its prestige, when it was one or two a season you still had the same verve. - A £5,000 skin per event (or TV Major) would make it very interesting as quickly you could see reaching £15,000-£20,000.

O'Sullivan underestimated what five grand means to people, especially those who would see five grand as a huge amount of money. It was funny though that they refused to pay him because technically the break was 140 and not a 147.


O Sullivan did get the 5k and he gave it to charity im sure

if it wasnt a 147 technically then why on earths it been officially classed as one then?

Re: Should there be a maximum break prize in snooker?

Postby SnookerFan

It's not something I care about too much either way, I must say. Voted not bothered. We are in a situation where there are a lot more playing opportunities now for all players, so there are more chances to play and earn money. And there's still a highest break prize anyway. So, the player still gets a reward for a 147, it's just nothing more then one would get for a 146.

Also, outside being in a position whereby I feel all players should be able to make a living, I find it difficult to care too much about what they earn. Obviously, we need to improve the situation whereby some top players are struggling for money. But the exact specifics of what they earn doesn't really interest me.

What I will say though, is I don't think they should get that much money for a 147. I don't mind there being a 147 prize, but at the World Championship giving away £147,000 at The Crucible, for a max seems far too much. I always thought that winning one frame earning you more then the runner up of the whole tournament received was a bit odd. Especially when, like in 2003, a player gets a 147 in their first round match, and still loses it. A first round loser gets £147,000, because of one good break? You could also calling that rewarding mediocrity. Giving £2,000 for a 147 is sufficient for, what is usually only about ten minutes or so's work.

If there's money to go round, I'd suggest a small reward for a 147, and the rest goes toward increasing players wages in other ways.

Re: Should there be a maximum break prize in snooker?

Postby Wildey

Witz your a 20 carott tit

of course they not bucking related you retarded hammer who the buck says but id rather see cash spread around towards the benefit of the sport than given to one man for one bucking grunting hammering Frame.

Give more Prize money etc ???

OK Barry Hearn sais "ill award a 147 price this year but the winners of the PTC only gets £8,000 to ballance it out"

id rather see more on the PTC Than reward bucking 147 so if you want to make a campaign for more Start there.

Re: Should there be a maximum break prize in snooker?

Postby Wildey

im sorry for that rant but i find the whole thing sickening there's other more important things that needs to address in snooker and get better and twitter makes a fuss about 147 prize money <doh> <doh> thats so low in priorities its laughable.

Re: Should there be a maximum break prize in snooker?

Postby Witz78

Wild wrote:Witz your a 20 carott tit


:hatoff:

Wild wrote: of course they not bucking related you retarded hammer who the buck says but id rather see cash spread around towards the benefit of the sport than given to one man for one bucking grunting hammering Frame.


yeh your right they aint related, yet your the one whos went off topic in this 147 prize debate and tried to trade one off againt the other <doh>

Wild wrote:Give more Prize money etc ???

OK Barry Hearn sais "ill award a 147 price this year but the winners of the PTC only gets £8,000 to ballance it out"


i wouldnt agree with that nor would many people, and its never going to happen. The money for 147s can come from extra from the sponsors or a slight reduction in the prizes overall through the competition to find even 5k

Wild wrote:id rather see more on the PTC Than reward bucking 147 so if you want to make a campaign for more Start there.


id rather see tons of money for the PTC and 147s but realistically at the moment, it aint going to happen.

But 147s are the elite top end of the game and are magical historical moments that deserve to be rewarded. By having no incentive for players to go for a 147, then they would far rather just come down for an easy blue than take on a dodgy black in order to win the frame as opposed to risking missing the black and ultimately losing the frame, when there was no extra cash at stake for going for the black anyway, just additional risk of losing the frame.

Re: Should there be a maximum break prize in snooker?

Postby SnookerFan

Depends which way you look at it. If the people who have got 147s are only doing it for financial incentive, and don't care anything for their place in history, then by removing financial incentive it'll make them more rare. But, you could argue that would make them more special when they didn't happen. It's kind of a glass half empty thing.

As long as players earning potential is up, I don't really care whether they have one or not. I think the idea of spreading money round so there is more earning potential is a better one then an additional 147 break prize. It would be nice if the sport could become so affluent, we could throw prize money at people making maximums and prize money was up across the board. But, as this is just a fantasy, I wouldn't particularly make a 147 break high on my list of priorities.
Last edited by SnookerFan on 31 May 2011, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Should there be a maximum break prize in snooker?

Postby Wildey

SnookerFan wrote:Depends which way you look at it. If the people who have got 147s are only doing it for financial incentive, and don't care anything for their place in history, then by removing financial incentive it'll make them more rare. But, you could argue that would make them more special when they didn't happen. It's kind of a glass half empty thing.

As long as players earning potential is up, I don't really care whether they have one or not. I think the idea of spreading money round so there is more earning potential is a better one then an additional 147 break prize. It would be nice if the sport could become so affluent, we could through prize money at people making maximums and prize money was up across the board. But, as this is just a fantasy, I wouldn't particularly make a 147 break high on my list of priorities.

:clap: :clap: <ok>

Re: Should there be a maximum break prize in snooker?

Postby Monique

PLtheRef wrote:A £5,000 skins game like Sonny suggested I think would make things interesting. As he's said

The reason why the Maximum Breaks prize were set so high was because hardly anyone made one, there were eight 147s in the entire 1980s - last season there were seven alone. Its coming to a stage where the sponsors bonuses were being bled


1980s average 0.9 max's a season
1990s average 2.9 max's a season
2000s average 3.1 max's a season
2010s average 3.5 max's a season.

When the feat becomes repeated tournament after tournament, then it begins to lose its prestige, when it was one or two a season you still had the same verve. - A £5,000 skin per event (or TV Major) would make it very interesting as quickly you could see reaching £15,000-£20,000.

O'Sullivan underestimated what five grand means to people, especially those who would see five grand as a huge amount of money. It was funny though that they refused to pay him because technically the break was 140 and not a 147.



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.
Last edited by Monique on 31 May 2011, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Should there be a maximum break prize in snooker?

Postby SnookerFan

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?