Topic locked

Re: Ronnie's 147

Postby Thompson Lykes » 21 Sep 2010 Read

the best 147 ever!

never seen one before where the player is having a chat with the referee all the way through.

as for the audience, I don't think they would have been too upset at missing a max - because they could have said they'd been witness to the most amazing break ever where the guy just walked away. Superb.

And for all those getting their panties in a twist, the best break of all time was supposed to be Higgins' against White, which fell some way short of a 147.

A 147 is the perfect frame, not always the perfect break

Re: Ronnie's 147

Postby randam05 » 21 Sep 2010 Read

Well said Thompson..

Im worried about ronnie leaving the game cause hes been a crowd favourite for years and is the man that gets the biggest crowds..in the 70s and 80s higgins 90s white were the men then ronnie from there on and if he quits I cant see anyone like him come into the game every again..everyone is too 'boring''serious' now and the money means to much..everybody loves a nutter for what they do like ronnie n higgins without these two the game would be half it is now. Does anyone come close to these two? nope.

Everyone has heard of ronnie and he is the main talking point of snooker..not as many people will watch on tv or live when he leaves the game. It probably wont affect us big snooker fans but certainly will others. Shame but I hope to see him carry something on in snooker.

Re: Ronnie's 147

Postby SnookerFan » 21 Sep 2010 Read

randam05 wrote:Well said Thompson..

Im worried about ronnie leaving the game cause hes been a crowd favourite for years and is the man that gets the biggest crowds..in the 70s and 80s higgins 90s white were the men then ronnie from there on and if he quits I cant see anyone like him come into the game every again..everyone is too 'boring''serious' now and the money means to much..everybody loves a nutter for what they do like ronnie n higgins without these two the game would be half it is now. Does anyone come close to these two? nope.

Everyone has heard of ronnie and he is the main talking point of snooker..not as many people will watch on tv or live when he leaves the game. It probably wont affect us big snooker fans but certainly will others. Shame but I hope to see him carry something on in snooker.


This is entirely the problem. I feel Ronnie has got off lightly on some counts. If he had been less popular, or more players were popular it'd be different. He's too popular in the game, which is the reason he's allowed to act like a tool.

Re: Ronnie's 147

Postby Monique » 22 Sep 2010 Read

well this one is from Neil Robertson the World Champion

http://www.sportinglife.com/snooker/wor ... tlead.html
llivan had to be persuaded by referee Jan Verhaas to pot the black to complete a 147 break in his clash with Mark King on Monday, after learning there was no prize-money bonus for a maximum.

But the crowd favourite had asked about the money on offer in the very early stages of the break, and to proceed to clear up impressed Australian ace Robertson.

"To pot one red and a black, then ask the referee if there's a 147 prize is pure genius, no other player would have done that," said Robertson, following his own 3-1 win over 21-year-old Irish prospect David Morris.

"He knew there wasn't a prize, he was just setting it up. No-one is bigger than the sport but he does make it more attractive when he does something like that."

Tomorrow O'Sullivan will again be the centre of attention, when he and veteran Jimmy White go head to head at the Glasgow SECC tournament venue.

They will be vying for the right to tackle seven-time world champion Stephen Hendry in the last 16 on Friday, after the draw tonight set up a guaranteed clash of snooker greats.

Robertson followed up his last-64 win over Scotland's Graeme Dott - the man he defeated to clinch Crucible glory in May - by beating Morris, who was making his debut on live television.

The Australian took the opening frame thanks to a break of 72, before Morris won a scrappy second to draw level.

Robertson eased back in front with a run of 62 in the third frame before coming from behind in the next to book a place in the next round against either Marco Fu or Andrew Higginson.

"I made some good clearances under pressure which was the most pleasing thing," Robertson said.

There was more Irish disappointment, as Ken Doherty, the 1997 world champion, bowed out to Kent's Barry Hawkins, who had breaks of 57, 73 and 53 in a 3-1 win as he followed up his eye-catching victory over Mark Selby in the previous round.

Hawkins will take on Mark Williams tomorrow evening in the last 16 - not the draw he wanted.

Speaking after his match, Hawkins had told worldsnooker.com: "I'd like to avoid the form players in the draw, particularly Ronnie O'Sullivan and Mark Williams."

Former Scottish amateur champion James McBain was outclassed by England's Ricky Walden, losing 3-0 despite making a fight of an absorbing 43-minute third frame. Walden had made a break of 102 to win the second frame.

Walden's reward is a last-16 contest against Stoke's Jamie Cope.


and with :love: from me to GJ ;)

Re: Ronnie's 147

Postby Roland » 22 Sep 2010 Read

:redneck:

I think it's time we all moved on from the 147. Once again Ronnie has proved to be the talking point. The only thing worthy of mention is that for someone who claims not to enjoy the spotlight, he sure knows how to ensure it is firmly on him.

Re: Ronnie's 147

Postby SnookerFan » 23 Sep 2010 Read

I was disappointed with Robertson's comments. And even Hendry implied he agreed that there should be prize money for getting a 147. You still get £4000 for it. For what, 10 minutes work?

Personally I'd have respected Ronnie more if he'd have flat out refused to pot the black then said in an interview; "It doesn't matter to me, of course, but it might to a lot of young player's who haven't won much in snooker." I may not have agreed with his point, but at least it would've shown a pre-determined plan based on thinking of others.

Instead what we saw was him keep mithering the referee. Refusing to pot the black, then doing it when being asked to. We also saw Jan the Man stick up for Ronnie, saying the 147 stood with Ronnie complaining afterwards that the referee mithered him into it, and a diss to other players saying they found 147s difficult, and he found it easy.

But I guess I am looking at this wrong. Said referee and players, including the World Champion have rallied round him. :roll:

Re: Ronnie's 147

Postby Monique » 23 Sep 2010 Read

SnookerFan wrote:I was disappointed with Robertson's comments. And even Hendry implied he agreed that there should be prize money for getting a 147. You still get £4000 for it. For what, 10 minutes work?

Personally I'd have respected Ronnie more if he'd have flat out refused to pot the black then said in an interview; "It doesn't matter to me, of course, but it might to a lot of young player's who haven't won much in snooker." I may not have agreed with his point, but at least it would've shown a pre-determined plan based on thinking of others.

Instead what we saw was him keep mithering the referee. Refusing to pot the black, then doing it when being asked to. We also saw Jan the Man stick up for Ronnie, saying the 147 stood with Ronnie complaining afterwards that the referee mithered him into it, and a diss to other players saying they found 147s difficult, and he found it easy.

But I guess I am looking at this wrong. Said referee and players, including the World Champion have rallied round him. :roll:


Indeed you do. Jan was all laughts about it right after the match. His comments on twitter about the "mithering" was "Brilliant!". They all had a bit of theatre there, can't you see that? And yes, Ronnie got his point through, and yes the other top players support him because is IS right about it. A maxi should have a special prize, as it used to have, because it remains a very special achievement.
The 4000£ are for the HB, whatever that is, not for a maximum. As I already wrote, the profile of a sport is judged today by what the top contenders can get for their performances, like it or not. Barry Hearn of course has to set priorities when money is short, but suppressing the "maxi bonus" is making snooker "cheap".

I wish Ronnie wouldn't be the only one to have the guts (or the nuttyness) to do this. I'd be very curious to see how forums would have reacted had Hendry done it. Or if Mark Williams would "push the black safe" as he himself suggested.

Re: Ronnie's 147

Postby SnookerFan » 23 Sep 2010 Read

Monique wrote:The 4000£ are for the HB, whatever that is, not for a maximum. As I already wrote, the profile of a sport is judged today by what the top contenders can get for their performances, like it or not. Barry Hearn of course has to set priorities when money is short, but suppressing the "maxi bonus" is making snooker "cheap".


I guess it must be. All people on here used to post about is how much prize money there is in the game.

Personally, it doesn't matter monkeys to me. I watch the game because I love it, not because I care about the profile or how much they win. Football has a higher profile, and higher prize money, but personally I think it has nowhere near the consistent excitement level of snooker.

On my own again as usual. <laugh>

Re: Ronnie's 147

Postby SnookerFan » 23 Sep 2010 Read

Though I do think it'll be interesting to see how much patience Hearn has with Ronnie. First he mouthes off that The Crucible is boring, then he goes on a protest he doesn't get paid enough. Will Hearn be stricter then the old board, despite Ronnie's personality?

Re: Ronnie's 147

Postby Monique » 23 Sep 2010 Read

Clive Everton in his last issue of snooker scene pointed out that Ronnie had been misquoted about that "boring" stuff, to make it look much worse than it was. He should know. He was there. I'm not surprised.

And regarding football, no you are not on your own ;)

Re: Ronnie's 147

Postby JohnFromLondonTown » 23 Sep 2010 Read

Is 'maxi' the new Buzz word in Snooker? Never mind Ronnie O'Sullivan not finishing the break, he can't even finish the word. :john:

Re: Ronnie's 147

Postby SnookerFan » 23 Sep 2010 Read

Monique wrote:Clive Everton in his last issue of snooker scene pointed out that Ronnie had been misquoted about that "boring" stuff, to make it look much worse than it was. He should know. He was there. I'm not surprised.

And regarding football, no you are not on your own ;)


Oh I follow football. If that's what West Brom play. <laugh> Snooker is king to me though.

Re: Ronnie's 147

Postby SnookerFan » 23 Sep 2010 Read

JohnFromLondonTown wrote:Is 'maxi' the new Buzz word in Snooker? Never mind Ronnie O'Sullivan not finishing the break, he can't even finish the word. :john:


<laugh> John.

:wave:

Re: Ronnie's 147

Postby JohnFromLondonTown » 23 Sep 2010 Read

SnookerFan wrote:
JohnFromLondonTown wrote:Is 'maxi' the new Buzz word in Snooker? Never mind Ronnie O'Sullivan not finishing the break, he can't even finish the word. :john:


<laugh> John.

:wave:

Morning SnookerFan. Have a good day. :)

Re: Ronnie's 147

Postby Monique » 23 Sep 2010 Read

JohnFromLondonTown wrote:Is 'maxi' the new Buzz word in Snooker? Never mind Ronnie O'Sullivan not finishing the break, he can't even finish the word. :john:

<laugh> never studied Latin John, not his fault!

Re: Ronnie's 147

Postby SnookerFan » 23 Sep 2010 Read

JohnFromLondonTown wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:
JohnFromLondonTown wrote:Is 'maxi' the new Buzz word in Snooker? Never mind Ronnie O'Sullivan not finishing the break, he can't even finish the word. :john:


<laugh> John.

:wave:

Morning SnookerFan. Have a good day. :)


Well, I am off for another fry up this morning. Then my mortgage meeting has been cancelled, so I can get a solid afternoon watching snooker and them am off down the pub with somebody from work.

Yesterday aside when I spent the whole day at my mate's watching snooker with some tinnies, I'm not getting the social element that I had wanted for watching this tournament. Another afternoon in alone watching this. Still can't complain. If it's a choice between enjoying a few beers and an afternoon of snooker or going to work, I know what I'd prefer. <laugh>

Re: Ronnie's 147

Postby JohnFromLondonTown » 23 Sep 2010 Read

Mon, Hi. Do you think Ronnie O'Sullivan would have done the same thing had he been on 148?

There's no prize money for a 155 either.

Re: Ronnie's 147

Postby Monique » 23 Sep 2010 Read

JohnFromLondonTown wrote:Mon, Hi. Do you think Ronnie O'Sullivan would have done the same thing had he been on 148?

There's no prize money for a 155 either.


I think the prize money, when it existed, for a 147 would have hold for a 155 John. A 148 isn't a maximum.
And the answer is yes, I think he would have done it.

Re: Ronnie's 147

Postby SnookerFan » 23 Sep 2010 Read

Monique wrote:
JohnFromLondonTown wrote:Mon, Hi. Do you think Ronnie O'Sullivan would have done the same thing had he been on 148?

There's no prize money for a 155 either.


I think the prize money, when it existed, for a 147 would have hold for a 155 John. A 148 isn't a maximum.
And the answer is yes, I think he would have done it.


Surely though, if you'd got a 147 prize, you'd get it whether it was a 147 or a 148.

Re: Ronnie's 147

Postby SnookerFan » 23 Sep 2010 Read

Thompson Lykes wrote:ask Jamie Burnett what he got


£40,000 and a lifetime of trouble from the cops.

Re: Ronnie's 147

Postby Monique » 23 Sep 2010 Read

SnookerFan wrote:
Monique wrote:
JohnFromLondonTown wrote:Mon, Hi. Do you think Ronnie O'Sullivan would have done the same thing had he been on 148?

There's no prize money for a 155 either.


I think the prize money, when it existed, for a 147 would have hold for a 155 John. A 148 isn't a maximum.
And the answer is yes, I think he would have done it.


Surely though, if you'd got a 147 prize, you'd get it whether it was a 147 or a 148.


no, because the 147 and the 155 are maximum breaks because it's the maximum number of points you can get with the balls available. 148 isn't. 148 means you had a free ball and you took some lower coulour(s) at some point, not all blacks.
Last edited by Monique on 23 Sep 2010, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Ronnie's 147

Postby Thompson Lykes » 23 Sep 2010 Read

SnookerFan wrote:
Thompson Lykes wrote:ask Jamie Burnett what he got


£40,000 and a lifetime of trouble from the cops.


for his 148 I'm sure he got a little trophy

Re: Ronnie's 147

Postby Noel » 23 Sep 2010 Read

O'SULLIVAN'S "MAXIPAD" PROTEST
I can see the headlines now... LOL

What is more interesting to me is that this
added political aspect to that frame altered
the familar ambi-dextrous form we've come
to expect from Ron. He was in his "right mind".
He KNEW he could make a 147. He had a mission.
A something EXTRA to prove motivation.
So he made some extremely difficult pots and
spell-binding positional execution and only shot
left-handed ONCE to avoid the rest.
That is something extraordinary.
That is some scary rubbish right there.
All considered, the most 'genius' performance
in the history of snooker.

=o)

Noel

Re: Ronnie's 147

Postby randam05 » 23 Sep 2010 Read

SnookerFan wrote:
Monique wrote:The 4000£ are for the HB, whatever that is, not for a maximum. As I already wrote, the profile of a sport is judged today by what the top contenders can get for their performances, like it or not. Barry Hearn of course has to set priorities when money is short, but suppressing the "maxi bonus" is making snooker "cheap".


I guess it must be. All people on here used to post about is how much prize money there is in the game.

Personally, it doesn't matter monkeys to me. I watch the game because I love it, not because I care about the profile or how much they win. Football has a higher profile, and higher prize money, but personally I think it has nowhere near the consistent excitement level of snooker.

On my own again as usual. <laugh>


Sf..no not on your own. I agree. Football doesnt have nowhere near as much excitement as snooker..well none for me. The only mildly exciting part of football is penalty shootout.

No the money involved in snooker shouldnt make a difference to us at all..but if you think about it, it does. else none of the players would bother trying to play their best cause nothing it wouldnt be worth it.

As one of the bbc players or pundits said ''players wont play the slightly harder pot to stay on the black when nearing the frame winning post cause its not worth it as the frame is now way much more important than the 147''

I think robertson said something along those lines and maybe davis. So it must be true, and if all the players are saying no prize money for a 147 is an appauling decision then it obviously is.

And in my eyes ..and i would like to hear everyone elses view on this.. is that a 147 is the single most hard thing to do in sport altogether? so in my eyes does deserve an awful lot of money.. Thoughts please? would like to hear if anyone else can think of anything more skillful in sport?

A hole in one? ..nope thats half luck.. Hatrick? ..Nope, nowhere near as much skill, effort, and nerves needed for that.. Century in cricket? ..i dont really know but it happens more often than a 147 i guess? ..9darter? ..only need to throw three darts, in a 147 you need to pot 36 balls holding pin point position on every shot.

So yes.. thoughts :)

Re: Ronnie's 147

Postby randam05 » 23 Sep 2010 Read

Im not feeling bad thanks mate, you? Just annoyed after my match tonight, and the Q marks were for the post I put before..wanted to know peoples thoughts.

Re: Ronnie's 147

Postby Roland » 23 Sep 2010 Read

I nearly got a 147 once, I missed the red on 64 :santa:
Topic locked