Post a reply

Is this a major?

Postby Andy Spark

Best of 9 matches! No history. You can't give this the same status as the others. IMO It is a joke to call this tournament a major. The premier league has a higher status in my book.

Re: Is this a major?

Postby Wildey

well its equal to the UK Championship point wise and BTW PTC has more prestige than PL.

Re: Is this a major?

Postby Skullman

The way it's presented with ranking points equal to the UK, high prize money and I think best of 17 semi, it seems to be set up as a major. Let's see how it turns out.

Re: Is this a major?

Postby Andy Spark

Wild WC wrote:well its equal to the UK Championship point wise and BTW PTC has more prestige than PL.

Well Barry Hearn can't just chuck the same number of ranking points at something and say that gives it equivalent status to the UK's. The UK's even now are over more frames and they have the history. Status is about many different factors like quality of opposition, history, number of frames, in addition to ranking points awarded. If Bazza wanted the same status he should have AT LEAST given the early matches best of 11's like the UK's now.

Re: Is this a major?

Postby Wildey

like every other event quality of opposition is dictated by players that want to play snooker if some divas decide to be stroppy and not enter well tough tits that doesn't distract from a event.

Re: Is this a major?

Postby Andy Spark

Wild WC wrote:like every other event quality of opposition is dictated by players that want to play snooker if some divas decide to be stroppy and not enter well tough tits that doesn't distract from a event.

What about the 1952 World Championship then? Do you regard Horace Lindrum as having the same status as other World Champions just because other top players were "stroppy" and didn't enter the official event?

Re: Is this a major?

Postby Wildey

Andy Spark wrote:
Wild WC wrote:like every other event quality of opposition is dictated by players that want to play snooker if some divas decide to be stroppy and not enter well tough tits that doesn't distract from a event.

What about the 1952 World Championship then? Do you regard Horace Lindrum as having the same status as other World Champions just because other top players were "stroppy" and didn't enter the official event?

yup he is the World Champion for that year

Re: Is this a major?

Postby SnookerFan

Is this only going to be on Eurosport? What are the odds that they don't even televise the final on Sunday? rofl

Re: Is this a major?

Postby Andy Spark

Wild WC wrote:
Andy Spark wrote:
Wild WC wrote:like every other event quality of opposition is dictated by players that want to play snooker if some divas decide to be stroppy and not enter well tough tits that doesn't distract from a event.

What about the 1952 World Championship then? Do you regard Horace Lindrum as having the same status as other World Champions just because other top players were "stroppy" and didn't enter the official event?

yup he is the World Champion for that year

Then you are an idiot.

Re: Is this a major?

Postby Wildey

Andy Spark wrote:
Wild WC wrote:
Andy Spark wrote:
Wild WC wrote:like every other event quality of opposition is dictated by players that want to play snooker if some divas decide to be stroppy and not enter well tough tits that doesn't distract from a event.

What about the 1952 World Championship then? Do you regard Horace Lindrum as having the same status as other World Champions just because other top players were "stroppy" and didn't enter the official event?

yup he is the World Champion for that year

Then you are an idiot.

but his name is on the trophy Ronnie currently holds.

Re: Is this a major?

Postby Andy Spark

Yes, sorry I shouldn't have called you an idiot, you are clearly intelligent. What I meant is that although his name is on the trophy it was just a match/Championship between two people and Horace wasn't exactly in his prime! Surely you can't just give the "powers that be" that degree of control, where they can do ANYTHING in the face of political adversity and it's respected. They work for the players, not the other way around. If the players do not support them then the "official" status is worth little; in 1952 the players (the majority) did not support them and the official Championship therefore lacks status, at least this is what most people say.

Re: Is this a major?

Postby Wildey

Andy Spark wrote:Yes, sorry I shouldn't have called you an idiot, you are clearly intelligent. What I meant is that although his name is on the trophy it was just a match/Championship between two people and Horace wasn't exactly in his prime! Surely you can't just give the "powers that be" that degree of control, where they can do ANYTHING in the face of political adversity and it's respected. They work for the players, not the other way around. If the players do not support them then the "official" status is worth little; in 1952 the players (the majority) did not support them and the official Championship therefore lacks status, at least this is what most people say.

of course you are Right but it cant be compared to now.

Stephen Hendry has Retired Ronnie has semi Retired for the time Being what are Players suppose to do not play anymore in anything because some Great players Missing.

Rankings are Based on consistency not who the Greatest is...to determine Greatest you Rack up Tournaments and Majors at that it will take time for this event to be established but the World Moves on... for about 30 years of major tennis events there was only 3 "Grand Slam" Events then the Australian Open started and the same sort of thing with Golf then new Events was Added to create a 4 Way Major Haul.

Re: Is this a major?

Postby Muppet147

Andy Spark wrote:Yes, sorry I shouldn't have called you an idiot, you are clearly intelligent.


How do you come to that brilliant deduction? :-)

Re: Is this a major?

Postby Andy Spark

Muppet147 wrote:
Andy Spark wrote:Yes, sorry I shouldn't have called you an idiot, you are clearly intelligent.


How do you come to that brilliant deduction? :-)

Simple, the admin on here don't like me because of my association with Rocketronnie.com (and BTW the details of their collective affairs were BEFORE MY TIME!) therfore I feel it might be to my advantage to "butter up" major contributors over on this site to alleviate this affliction, that is while I'm not doing stuff that is more important, which is rarely because I eat in the finest restaurants and luxuriate in chucking gold bars over the side of my balcony.

Re: Is this a major?

Postby Andre147

Andy Spark wrote:
Muppet147 wrote:
Andy Spark wrote:Yes, sorry I shouldn't have called you an idiot, you are clearly intelligent.


How do you come to that brilliant deduction? :-)

Simple, the admin on here don't like me because of my association with Rocketronnie.com (and BTW the details of their collective affairs were BEFORE MY TIME!) therfore I feel it might be to my advantage to "butter up" major contributors over on this site to alleviate this affliction, that is while I'm not doing stuff that is more important, which is rarely because I eat in the finest restaurants and luxuriate in chucking gold bars over the side of my balcony.


rofl rofl rofl :argue: :argue: :argue: :argue:

Re: Is this a major?

Postby Roland

Andy Spark wrote:
Muppet147 wrote:
Andy Spark wrote:Yes, sorry I shouldn't have called you an idiot, you are clearly intelligent.


How do you come to that brilliant deduction? :-)

Simple, the admin on here don't like me because of my association with Rocketronnie.com (and BTW the details of their collective affairs were BEFORE MY TIME!) therfore I feel it might be to my advantage to "butter up" major contributors over on this site to alleviate this affliction, that is while I'm not doing stuff that is more important, which is rarely because I eat in the finest restaurants and luxuriate in chucking gold bars over the side of my balcony.


I have no problem with you being here, but if you say stupid things like you do on that other site, then expect to be held to account by people who do know what they're talking about.

(And incidentally, whenever I see the word "Slowby" I instantly think "tosser")

:santa:

Re: Is this a major?

Postby Andy Spark

Sonny wrote:
I have no problem with you being here, but if you say stupid things like you do on that other site, then expect to be held to account by people who do know what they're talking about.

(And incidentally, whenever I see the word "Slowby" I instantly think "tosser")

:santa:

"Slowby" is only a joke!!! One used a lot by Ronniefans on Rocketronnie.net as well as the official site to infer that they prefer watching a different style of play, a style that isn't quite so willing to get bogged down in long drawn out tactical affairs. Selby himself has said that he doesn't really read or notice any criticism of his style so I don't think we're really being unkind referring to him that way. If you like I'll change his nickname to "Rocket Mark" then he can have the same speed status as Ronnie!
:play:

Re: Is this a major?

Postby Roland

No, it was invented by Daniel as a derogatory term and believe it or not he actually used to like Selby until he beat Ronnie a few times. Anyway, that's by the by, Slowby is insulting, it's not funny, primarily because he's not actually that slow. Also, every person I've seen use it is an idiot so that's why I come to that conclusion about its use.

Re: Is this a major?

Postby Andy Spark

Sonny wrote:No, it was invented by Daniel as a derogatory term and believe it or not he actually used to like Selby until he beat Ronnie a few times. Anyway, that's by the by, Slowby is insulting, it's not funny, primarily because he's not actually that slow. Also, every person I've seen use it is an idiot so that's why I come to that conclusion about its use.

...and another thing, when you say "people who do know what they're are talking about (rather than me)" Lets look at the world championship predictions...

My Choices
To win: Ronnie (correct)
Dark Horse: Ali Carter (correct, the runner up).

Roland's Choices
To win: Mark Selby (hammered 3-10 1st round),
Dark Horse: Peter Ebdon (hammered 4-10 1st round)

Re: Is this a major?

Postby Skullman

Selby was injured.

Although :hatoff: to you for guessing Ali Carter as a dark horse. Very underrated player.

Re: Is this a major?

Postby Roland

Andy Spark wrote:
Sonny wrote:No, it was invented by Daniel as a derogatory term and believe it or not he actually used to like Selby until he beat Ronnie a few times. Anyway, that's by the by, Slowby is insulting, it's not funny, primarily because he's not actually that slow. Also, every person I've seen use it is an idiot so that's why I come to that conclusion about its use.

...and another thing, when you say "people who do know what they're are talking about (rather than me)" Lets look at the world championship predictions...

My Choices
To win: Ronnie (correct)
Dark Horse: Ali Carter (correct, the runner up).

Roland's Choices
To win: Mark Selby (hammered 3-10 1st round),
Dark Horse: Peter Ebdon (hammered 4-10 1st round)


:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

Re: Is this a major?

Postby Sickpotter

Not that I'm not already sure of the answer but for fun let's ask......

Hey Andy, have you picked anyone other than ROS to win the WC in the last decade? :john:

Re: Is this a major?

Postby Wildey

Sickpotter wrote:Not that I'm not already sure of the answer but for fun let's ask......

Hey Andy, have you picked anyone other than ROS to win the WC in the last decade? :john:

rofl rofl

yes pick essex players.

next year Amy Childs will be his pick

Re: Is this a major?

Postby Andy Spark

Sickpotter wrote:Not that I'm not already sure of the answer but for fun let's ask......

Hey Andy, have you picked anyone other than ROS to win the WC in the last decade? :john:

I have only been on the internet relatively recently, I don't remember trying to predict a winner last year but I would have predicted John Higgins. Also I predicted Robertson in 2010, although you'll have to take my word for that one as I wasn't on the internet. I believe I have a 100% record on correctly predicting the winner of the world championship when I have bothered to do so. I fully expect to get it right next year too.

Re: Is this a major?

Postby Lucky

Andy Spark wrote:
Sickpotter wrote:Not that I'm not already sure of the answer but for fun let's ask......

Hey Andy, have you picked anyone other than ROS to win the WC in the last decade? :john:

I have only been on the internet relatively recently, I don't remember trying to predict a winner last year but I would have predicted John Higgins. Also I predicted Robertson in 2010, although you'll have to take my word for that one as I wasn't on the internet. I believe I have a 100% record on correctly predicting the winner of the world championship when I have bothered to do so. I fully expect to get it right next year too.



You should do the bookies son, you're wasted in these compos.......you'll never have to work, er, still <ok>

Re: Is this a major?

Postby Andy Spark

Lucky wrote:
Andy Spark wrote:
Sickpotter wrote:Not that I'm not already sure of the answer but for fun let's ask......

Hey Andy, have you picked anyone other than ROS to win the WC in the last decade? :john:

I have only been on the internet relatively recently, I don't remember trying to predict a winner last year but I would have predicted John Higgins. Also I predicted Robertson in 2010, although you'll have to take my word for that one as I wasn't on the internet. I believe I have a 100% record on correctly predicting the winner of the world championship when I have bothered to do so. I fully expect to get it right next year too.



You should do the bookies son, you're wasted in these compos.......you'll never have to work, er, still <ok>

Maybe, maybe. Talk is cheap I know but it would make me so nervous knowing my money was riding on the result that I wouldn't enjoy watching the championship. Also it's easy to win a few then get overconfident.

Anyway, we've rather gone off topic. I was originally wondering why we've got a best of 9 major event. I can't predict these events, there's a lot of luck involved in the outcome of a best of 9 format which IMO makes them rather unsuitable for "majors". You end up with X,Y and Z winning, a bag of liquorice allsorts which in the long term will impugn the status of the event and the winners. It's no good just sticking a best of 17 into the semis, that is a token measure, it does very little to alter the fundamental nature of a best of 9 event as most players won't even reach the semis.

Re: Is this a major?

Postby Roland

We all want longer formats but as far as new events go, this is the closest we've had to a proper big tournament and the points are the same as the UK. I don't know if it's best of 9 or best of 11 like the UK in the earlier rounds but whatever it is, it's one of the big ones to win this season.

Re: Is this a major?

Postby Andy Spark

Sonny wrote:We all want longer formats but as far as new events go, this is the closest we've had to a proper big tournament and the points are the same as the UK. I don't know if it's best of 9 or best of 11 like the UK in the earlier rounds but whatever it is, it's one of the big ones to win this season.

I disagree.

Re: Is this a major?

Postby Skullman

Your whole argument is that the best of nines mean that some 'unworthy' players will make it through, so it doesn't deserve to be a major. But you have unexpected people getting through all types of matches. Eight seeds fell during this years worlds in the first round which were best of 19.

On the other hand, the 2010 World Open which was best of 5s had four world champions in its semis, and most of the PTCs have been won by top players. And all the 'bigger' PTCs, in terms of atmosphere and being televised, were won by top players. If the crowds are atmosphere isn't flat, the money is good and the top players are sharp, you won't have (m)any lesser players winning it.