Post a reply

Re: Shanghai Masters Final !!!

Postby Holden Chinaski

Wildey wrote:
TheRocket wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fmZJ5U3FXM#t=1m30s

This is the interview.

Strange that he puts the Masters above the UK (the UK even had a bo31 final in Hendrys earlier years) but the great man clearly says those three are above the rest.

That Interview was in 2017.


Believe me in his prime he NEVER thought like that it was always about winning everything yea in the 2000s when he had a family he was trying to focus on some events more than others.

In the interview Hendry clearly sais he "ALWAYS prioritised those three events".

Re: Shanghai Masters Final !!!

Postby Holden Chinaski

eraserhead wrote:Look at the crowds the masters get do you really think players care about winning a best of 21 or would they rather win the masters in a packed ally pally. People rate the international championship on here just because it has longer matches, but hardly anyone actually watches the tournaments.

<ok>

Re: Shanghai Masters Final !!!

Postby Iranu

Holden Chinaski wrote:
Wildey wrote:
TheRocket wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fmZJ5U3FXM#t=1m30s

This is the interview.

Strange that he puts the Masters above the UK (the UK even had a bo31 final in Hendrys earlier years) but the great man clearly says those three are above the rest.

That Interview was in 2017.


Believe me in his prime he NEVER thought like that it was always about winning everything yea in the 2000s when he had a family he was trying to focus on some events more than others.

In the interview Hendry clearly sais he "ALWAYS prioritised those three events".

Wild knows Hendry better than Hendry knows himself.

Re: Shanghai Masters Final !!!

Postby Wildey

Holden Chinaski wrote:
Wildey wrote:
TheRocket wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fmZJ5U3FXM#t=1m30s

This is the interview.

Strange that he puts the Masters above the UK (the UK even had a bo31 final in Hendrys earlier years) but the great man clearly says those three are above the rest.

That Interview was in 2017.


Believe me in his prime he NEVER thought like that it was always about winning everything yea in the 2000s when he had a family he was trying to focus on some events more than others.

In the interview Hendry clearly sais he "ALWAYS prioritised those three events".

He was Bullshitting Hendry wanted to win everything he entered and he prepared the same for every event

Re: Shanghai Masters Final !!!

Postby Wildey

eraserhead wrote:Look at the crowds the masters get do you really think players care about winning a best of 21 or would they rather win the masters in a packed ally pally. People rate the international championship on here just because it has longer matches, but hardly anyone actually watches the tournaments.

The Masters gets more than the World Championship so by that logic its obvios the Masters is the one to win infact the German Masters gets more than the Masters even so lets talk about Prestiege here yea.

Re: Shanghai Masters Final !!!

Postby Iranu

Wildey wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:
Wildey wrote:
TheRocket wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fmZJ5U3FXM#t=1m30s

This is the interview.

Strange that he puts the Masters above the UK (the UK even had a bo31 final in Hendrys earlier years) but the great man clearly says those three are above the rest.

That Interview was in 2017.


Believe me in his prime he NEVER thought like that it was always about winning everything yea in the 2000s when he had a family he was trying to focus on some events more than others.

In the interview Hendry clearly sais he "ALWAYS prioritised those three events".

He was Bullshitting Hendry wanted to win everything he entered and he prepared the same for every event

I dunno, there is evidence that he tried extra hard in those.

5x Worlds and Masters in a row and 3x UK’s in a row.

Then again maybe he won other tournaments several times in a row, I don’t know.

Re: Shanghai Masters Final !!!

Postby Johnny Bravo

eraserhead wrote:Look at the crowds the masters get do you really think players care about winning a best of 21 or would they rather win the masters in a packed ally pally. People rate the international championship on here just because it has longer matches, but hardly anyone actually watches the tournaments.


:goodpost:

Re: Shanghai Masters Final !!!

Postby vodkadiet1

Who cares who coined the term 'triple crown'? It is meaningless. You can only use that term if the 3 events are equal in stature and clearly they are not.


Is it a coincidence that O'Sullivan has never skipped The World Championships but has skipped The Masters (once), and The UK Championships (three times). It is because they are nowhere near the level of The World Championships.


It also depends on the player as to what tournaments are important. For example The Thailand Open was more important to James Wattana than The UK or The Masters. But not one player would have The World Championships not at the top of the list.

Re: Shanghai Masters Final !!!

Postby Iranu

vodkadiet1 wrote:Who cares who coined the term 'triple crown'? It is meaningless. You can only use that term if the 3 events are equal in stature and clearly they are not.


Is it a coincidence that O'Sullivan has never skipped The World Championships but has skipped The Masters (once), and The UK Championships (three times). It is because they are nowhere near the level of The World Championships.


It also depends on the player as to what tournaments are important. For example The Thailand Open was more important to James Wattana than The UK or The Masters. But not one player would have The World Championships not at the top of the list.

I agree with all of this.

Re: Shanghai Masters Final !!!

Postby Holden Chinaski

There's absolutely nobody saying the World Championship is not the most important tournament. Of course it is. I'm just saying if you ask the top players which tournaments are the most important for them I'm sure most of them will say the Triple Crown. Even Hendry said in that interview those 3 tournaments were always top priority for him.

Re: Shanghai Masters Final !!!

Postby eraserhead

Wildey wrote:
eraserhead wrote:Look at the crowds the masters get do you really think players care about winning a best of 21 or would they rather win the masters in a packed ally pally. People rate the international championship on here just because it has longer matches, but hardly anyone actually watches the tournaments.

The Masters gets more than the World Championship so by that logic its obvios the Masters is the one to win infact the German Masters gets more than the Masters even so lets talk about Prestiege here yea.

My point is that it's only people on here who think longer matches equals more prestige. Worlds, UK and masters all have history, are well supported they're the ones players will want to win the most.


The only thing missing from german masters is a bigger prize fund. Loads of the players say it's their favourite venue to play.

Re: Shanghai Masters Final !!!

Postby Ck147

I don't think the term "triple crown" is meaningless, it has built up meaning over the last 10 or so years, however that happened doesn't matter. I see it as something good, gives us something to compare 'greatness' of the players and gives the players incentive to try and become one of the greatest. They don't all have to be equal, clearly the WC is top, but all prestigious events that the players want to win. Similar to the grand tours in cycling, the 3 biggest events, everyone knows the Tour de France is the main one, but to win all 3 makes you one of the greats as there are only a few who can do it.

Re: Shanghai Masters Final !!!

Postby vodkadiet1

Ck147 wrote:I don't think the term "triple crown" is meaningless, it has built up meaning over the last 10 or so years, however that happened doesn't matter. I see it as something good, gives us something to compare 'greatness' of the players and gives the players incentive to try and become one of the greatest. They don't all have to be equal, clearly the WC is top, but all prestigious events that the players want to win. Similar to the grand tours in cycling, the 3 biggest events, everyone knows the Tour de France is the main one, but to win all 3 makes you one of the greats as there are only a few who can do it.


Well it is meaningless. It suggests that all that there is an equivalence of importance.

The BBC are now just bunching the 3 events in one and listing players by so called 'triple crown' events.

It implies that a player winning 6 Masters, 6 UK Championships, and 1 World Championship (13) is better than a player who has won 8 World Championships, 2 Masters, and 2 UK Championships (12).

The bunching together of majors works in tennis and golf because the majors in these events are of near enough equal importance. It certainly doesn't work in snooker.

Re: Shanghai Masters Final !!!

Postby Johnny Bravo

vodkadiet1 wrote:Well it is meaningless. It suggests that all that there is an equivalence of importance.

The BBC are now just bunching the 3 events in one and listing players by so called 'triple crown' events.

It implies that a player winning 6 Masters, 6 UK Championships, and 1 World Championship (13) is better than a player who has won 8 World Championships, 2 Masters, and 2 UK Championships (12).

The bunching together of majors works in tennis and golf because the majors in these events are of near enough equal importance. It certainly doesn't work in snooker.


Your post is somewhat true, but only to a certain extent. For example, Hazel Irvine called ROS the GOAT after he won his 19th triple crown cause that tally was pretty balanced in it's composition.
If ROS would have had 1 WC, 10 Masters and 8 UK's, I doubt anyone would have called him the GOAT.
But given that he had won each of them at least 5 times, the comparison with Hendry was more than justified.

Anyway, I think we are all in agreement that the WC is the most important triple crown event, but the other 2 are also very important and above the other "normal" events, if we can call them that.

Re: Shanghai Masters Final !!!

Postby Andre147

eraserhead wrote:
Wildey wrote:
eraserhead wrote:Look at the crowds the masters get do you really think players care about winning a best of 21 or would they rather win the masters in a packed ally pally. People rate the international championship on here just because it has longer matches, but hardly anyone actually watches the tournaments.

The Masters gets more than the World Championship so by that logic its obvios the Masters is the one to win infact the German Masters gets more than the Masters even so lets talk about Prestiege here yea.

My point is that it's only people on here who think longer matches equals more prestige. Worlds, UK and masters all have history, are well supported they're the ones players will want to win the most.


The only thing missing from german masters is a bigger prize fund. Loads of the players say it's their favourite venue to play.


Thats right, longer matches dont exactly equal to it being more important.

Like you rightly say, the German Masters is one of the very best events on the calendar, the atmosphere and that incredible venue make it so, and all players say its one of the events they would love to win, Judd Trump for instance says its one of his favourites, and he in fact has never won it.

The German Masters deserves more prize money though.

Re: Shanghai Masters Final !!!

Postby Ck147

vodkadiet1 wrote:
Ck147 wrote:I don't think the term "triple crown" is meaningless, it has built up meaning over the last 10 or so years, however that happened doesn't matter. I see it as something good, gives us something to compare 'greatness' of the players and gives the players incentive to try and become one of the greatest. They don't all have to be equal, clearly the WC is top, but all prestigious events that the players want to win. Similar to the grand tours in cycling, the 3 biggest events, everyone knows the Tour de France is the main one, but to win all 3 makes you one of the greats as there are only a few who can do it.


Well it is meaningless. It suggests that all that there is an equivalence of importance.

The BBC are now just bunching the 3 events in one and listing players by so called 'triple crown' events.

It implies that a player winning 6 Masters, 6 UK Championships, and 1 World Championship (13) is better than a player who has won 8 World Championships, 2 Masters, and 2 UK Championships (12).

The bunching together of majors works in tennis and golf because the majors in these events are of near enough equal importance. It certainly doesn't work in snooker.

I'm thinking higher level, being a triple crown winner shows you can win the 3 most prestigious events, which vary in format and indicate you can adapt to those formats and maybe a better all round player. Puts you in a different category to players who serially win one of those events and nothing else. A triple crown player who wins more WC's would be higher on the greatness scale than triple crown players who won more Masters.

But then I would consider a 5 time WC only winner greater than someone who has won 1 WC + 2 UK + 2 Masters.

I think I've talked myself into agreeing with you, well done sir!

Re: Shanghai Masters Final !!!

Postby Badsnookerplayer

Fair post that CK.

Many people become very frustrated arguing with Vodka's belief that the Worlds stand above all else. I think the frustration lies in the fact that it is pretty much true.

I think if Ronnie had won 8 WCs then some posters would be singing a very different tune.

Re: Shanghai Masters Final !!!

Postby Johnny Bravo

Badsnookerplayer wrote:Fair post that CK.

Many people become very frustrated arguing with Vodka's belief that the Worlds stand above all else. I think the frustration lies in the fact that it is pretty much true.

I think if Ronnie had won 8 WCs then some posters would be singing a very different tune.


Nobody is disputing that the WC is the most important event, the point some of us are making is that it isn't the only meaningful one.

Re: Shanghai Masters Final !!!

Postby Badsnookerplayer

No that is a fair point JB.

Of course other tournaments are meaningful. There are one or two that lack prestige, but the point about the WC is that it is the gold standard IMO.

Vodka's argument stands as long as Hendry has the most WC titles. The minute he does not, then there is no argument to be had.

Re: Shanghai Masters Final !!!

Postby Johnny Bravo

Badsnookerplayer wrote:No that is a fair point JB.

Of course other tournaments are meaningful. There are one or two that lack prestige, but the point about the WC is that it is the gold standard IMO.

Vodka's argument stands as long as Hendry has the most WC titles. The minute he does not, then there is no argument to be had.


Vodka's argument is flawed because it doesn't take into account the circumstances in which a player won his titles, meaning the opposition he faced and the standard of snooker at that time period.
I posted an article on this in the "Top 10 players of all time" thread:
https://www.cuedrills.com/who-is-the-gr ... -all-time/

As far as I'm concerned, a WC win now is worth twice as one in the 90's.

Re: Shanghai Masters Final !!!

Postby Badsnookerplayer

Johnny Bravo wrote:
Badsnookerplayer wrote:No that is a fair point JB.

Of course other tournaments are meaningful. There are one or two that lack prestige, but the point about the WC is that it is the gold standard IMO.

Vodka's argument stands as long as Hendry has the most WC titles. The minute he does not, then there is no argument to be had.


Vodka's argument is flawed because it doesn't take into account the circumstances in which a player won his titles, meaning the opposition he faced and the standard of snooker at that time period.
I posted an article on this in the "Top 10 players of all time" thread:
https://www.cuedrills.com/who-is-the-gr ... -all-time/

As far as I'm concerned, a WC win now is worth twice as one in the 90's.

It is an impossible argument.

For: the opposition was not as strong then, particularly in depth. etc.

Against: the tables were not as easy and uniform as they are today etc.

All you can do is beat what is in front of you in the conditions you are presented with.

Re: Shanghai Masters Final !!!

Postby vodkadiet1

Of course The Masters and The UK are huge events, albeit the UK has been devalued since the shortening of frames. I would say The Masters is more prestigious than The UK now.

I believe O'Sullivan's attitude has let him down. He doesn't appear to want to fight for another world title and it was the 2014 final that caused his uncertainty.

He said before the first round of this year's World Championship "I would rather lose in the first round than get all the way to the final and then lose."

Re: Shanghai Masters Final !!!

Postby Pink Ball

Badsnookerplayer wrote:
Johnny Bravo wrote:
Badsnookerplayer wrote:No that is a fair point JB.

Of course other tournaments are meaningful. There are one or two that lack prestige, but the point about the WC is that it is the gold standard IMO.

Vodka's argument stands as long as Hendry has the most WC titles. The minute he does not, then there is no argument to be had.


Vodka's argument is flawed because it doesn't take into account the circumstances in which a player won his titles, meaning the opposition he faced and the standard of snooker at that time period.
I posted an article on this in the "Top 10 players of all time" thread:
https://www.cuedrills.com/who-is-the-gr ... -all-time/

As far as I'm concerned, a WC win now is worth twice as one in the 90's.

It is an impossible argument.

For: the opposition was not as strong then, particularly in depth. etc.

Against: the tables were not as easy and uniform as they are today etc.

All you can do is beat what is in front of you in the conditions you are presented with.

Or you could ask me and easily find out which players are/were better than others.

Re: Shanghai Masters Final !!!

Postby Badsnookerplayer

Pink Ball wrote:
Badsnookerplayer wrote:
Johnny Bravo wrote:
Vodka's argument is flawed because it doesn't take into account the circumstances in which a player won his titles, meaning the opposition he faced and the standard of snooker at that time period.
I posted an article on this in the "Top 10 players of all time" thread:
https://www.cuedrills.com/who-is-the-gr ... -all-time/

As far as I'm concerned, a WC win now is worth twice as one in the 90's.

It is an impossible argument.

For: the opposition was not as strong then, particularly in depth. etc.

Against: the tables were not as easy and uniform as they are today etc.

All you can do is beat what is in front of you in the conditions you are presented with.

Or you could ask me and easily find out which players are/were better than others.

Well I could but it would just be an opinion - and a well-informed one at that.

Re: Shanghai Masters Final !!!

Postby Pink Ball

Badsnookerplayer wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:
Badsnookerplayer wrote:
Johnny Bravo wrote:
Vodka's argument is flawed because it doesn't take into account the circumstances in which a player won his titles, meaning the opposition he faced and the standard of snooker at that time period.
I posted an article on this in the "Top 10 players of all time" thread:
https://www.cuedrills.com/who-is-the-gr ... -all-time/

As far as I'm concerned, a WC win now is worth twice as one in the 90's.

It is an impossible argument.

For: the opposition was not as strong then, particularly in depth. etc.

Against: the tables were not as easy and uniform as they are today etc.

All you can do is beat what is in front of you in the conditions you are presented with.

Or you could ask me and easily find out which players are/were better than others.

Well I could but it would just be an opinion - and a well-informed one at that.

No, it would be the official answer. Well-informed is the understatement to top all understatements when it comes to me on the topic of snooker.

Re: Shanghai Masters Final !!!

Postby vodkadiet1

Ck147 wrote:
vodkadiet1 wrote:
Ck147 wrote:I don't think the term "triple crown" is meaningless, it has built up meaning over the last 10 or so years, however that happened doesn't matter. I see it as something good, gives us something to compare 'greatness' of the players and gives the players incentive to try and become one of the greatest. They don't all have to be equal, clearly the WC is top, but all prestigious events that the players want to win. Similar to the grand tours in cycling, the 3 biggest events, everyone knows the Tour de France is the main one, but to win all 3 makes you one of the greats as there are only a few who can do it.


Well it is meaningless. It suggests that all that there is an equivalence of importance.

The BBC are now just bunching the 3 events in one and listing players by so called 'triple crown' events.

It implies that a player winning 6 Masters, 6 UK Championships, and 1 World Championship (13) is better than a player who has won 8 World Championships, 2 Masters, and 2 UK Championships (12).

The bunching together of majors works in tennis and golf because the majors in these events are of near enough equal importance. It certainly doesn't work in snooker.

I'm thinking higher level, being a triple crown winner shows you can win the 3 most prestigious events, which vary in format and indicate you can adapt to those formats and maybe a better all round player. Puts you in a different category to players who serially win one of those events and nothing else. A triple crown player who wins more WC's would be higher on the greatness scale than triple crown players who won more Masters.

But then I would consider a 5 time WC only winner greater than someone who has won 1 WC + 2 UK + 2 Masters.

I think I've talked myself into agreeing with you, well done sir!


Minds are like parachutes, they work better when they are open, and your mind is open CK147.

Re: Shanghai Masters Final !!!

Postby Pink Ball

Badsnookerplayer wrote:Well go on then.

Alrighty then. Let's take for example Hendry and Ding, seeing as Johnny was suggesting on another thread that Ding may be the greater player.

So let's put it into my 'Which-player-is-higher-on-the-all-time-rankings-a-majig':

*bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz*

Answer: Hendry ranks higher on the all-time list.

Simple.


   

cron