PDA

View Full Version : snooker



Billy
05-02-2005, 03:16 PM
Shaun Murphy is the new world's snooker champion.along with the title comes a pretty sporty first place monetary prize of over $475,000. if my calculations are correct.

Unbelievably envious

jmo

dr_dave
05-02-2005, 03:51 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Billy:</font><hr> Shaun Murphy is the new world's snooker champion.along with the title comes a pretty sporty first place monetary prize of over $475,000.<hr /></blockquote>
And people wonder why the great male snooker players don't come to the US. It probably has something to do with the money.

Some of the female snooker players (Allison Fisher, Karen Corr, Julie Kelley, Julie Fisher, etc.) have come to the US because there is no money in female snooker in the UK. With endorsements, exhibitions, appearances, product sales, and tournament prizes, they do quite well in the US. The snooker females are dominating the US pool scene because it is profitable.

If some of the great snooker men came to the US (although, there's no reason for them to do so), and if they dedicated themselves to learning the intricacies of pool (as the women have), I wonder if they would have similar success. Just food for thought based on discussion that has appeared in the famous Ronnie thread (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=176378&amp;page =0&amp;view=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=1).

Dr. Dave

bustah360
05-02-2005, 04:07 PM
I've seen so many interviews with players like Allison Fisher and Karen Corr saying the same thing. They've come to America because women players can not make a decent living in the game of snooker. Its pretty sad that this type of standard exists in today's society. Especially in another grown up country like the UK.

BoroNut
05-02-2005, 05:50 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bustah360:</font><hr>Its pretty sad that this type of standard exists in today's society. Especially in another grown up country like the UK.<hr /></blockquote>

I think you are missing the point. They couldn't make a living playing the few other women players because no one wants to pay to see it, and they couldn't hope to make it through the meatgrinder qualifying circuit (where nobody makes money) to the big TV events because of the incredibly hight standard, which you clearly underestimate. One of those faceless qualifiers is going to bed as world champion tonight. Look what happens to most of those who drop out of the prequalified top 16. They usually sink without trace.

Boro Nut

dr_dave
05-03-2005, 08:10 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bustah360:</font><hr> I've seen so many interviews with players like Allison Fisher and Karen Corr saying the same thing. They've come to America because women players can not make a decent living in the game of snooker. Its pretty sad that this type of standard exists in today's society. Especially in another grown up country like the UK.<hr /></blockquote>
Here's another message (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=166131&amp;Foru m=ccb&amp;Words=money%2C%20snooker&amp;Match=And&amp;Searchpag e=0&amp;Limit=25&amp;Old=6months&amp;Main=164552&amp;Search=true#P ost166131) I found with an interesting analysis of the situation.

Dr. Dave

bsmutz
05-03-2005, 04:39 PM
Boronut, Could you please expound upon this a little? What are the standards required to make it to the top 16? Why do those that fall out disappear without a trace? Are you talking about standards of conduct, standards of play, or both? We get very little information over here about snooker and this has been on my mind for awhile, watching the ladies migrate to a place where pool as a televised sport is virtually ignored by the mainstream population. Are there smaller tournaments that pay out a modest income for snooker players beyond the live matches or are they just club tournaments with bragging rights? It seems that from what I've read that individual clubs keep lists (forever, seemingly) of players that have century breaks and/or maximums.

BoroNut
05-04-2005, 02:00 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bsmutz:</font><hr> Boronut, Could you please expound upon this a little? What are the standards required to make it to the top 16?<hr /></blockquote>

It's based on ranking points, but the system takes account of past performances for a number of years, and once you're established it seems you can hang on in there by winning one round per tournament while better players fight it out behind the scenes. I think Davis and White may have managed to return to the top 16 at one time, and at that time they were probably worth it. On present form they look like shadows of their former selves.

There is a bit of a cushion down to number 32, as I think you only play one qualifying match at that level. Below that though there is no escape from the ravenous mob of young players eager to add another scalp to their growing resumés.

You can make a living at that level but I'm sure you have a different perspective on the way up than on the way down. Many seem to simply chuck it in once they disappear from view to avoid the indignity of being roundly thrashed week in week out.

In the future I think we will definitely see more foreigners - particularly Chinese - making a name for themselves, and possibly winning the world title, but maybe not before Judd Trump retires, and he is still only a 15 year old amateur. At the moment foreigners suffer from the fact that every promising kid in the UK is spotted by the age of 8 and spends his formative years playing against and benefitting from coaching and competition at a vastly superior level. To make the grade they have to leave home at a young age and join the UK circuit. Some cant handle it, but as the number of expats rises so will the standard of support they can give to each other.

Standards have risen massively across the board here. To put things into perspective, when I started playing, the average club champ would be a 75 ish break player. It would be spoken of reverently and it was probably 20 years before. Century breaks were what the pros and world class amateurs got. When I finished playing league a couple of years ago we were all hundred break players. One of our lads had a 130 total clearance that season. Not bad going for a one frame match. Unluckily the highest break was 143 by a former team-mate of mine. And that is local town league. Not county level. Certainly not regional level, and miles away from international amateur level.

If you weren't knocking in centuries when you were twelve you can forget any delusions about being good enough nowadays. From there it's a step up again to the lowest rung of the pro circuit. If you ever do make it up through the rankings to achieve national recognition you are a bit spesh.

With the boom in snooker and access to snooker tables at all ages I doubt any youngster escapes the net in the UK nowadays. The record shows Stephen Hendry is the greatest snooker player so far, a direct product of the initial boom. It also suggests we haven’t seen the greatest yet. The Hendries and O’Sullivans broke the records for their age as youngsters, and those records have also been broken again. By contrast you probably don't know who the best American player is. There’s a fair chance he may well have never picked up a cue in his life.

Boro Nut

bsmutz
05-04-2005, 03:06 PM
Thanks for taking the time to reply. Sounds pretty amazing. You are probably right, even if someone over here had the natural ability, there's no money to attract them to spending the time and energy to pursue it. You really have to love it to make it worthwhile. God knows how many potentially great players never pick up a cue.