To be fair, they're making a valid point which you're failing to address.
Ronnie O'Sullivan
- Thread starter sharkmate
- Start date
To be fair, they're making a valid point which you're failing to address.
Which is what? I missed that. Sorry.
Can you summarise please?
Or did you mean wrt a maximum?
I made my point. It has been countermanded by people that do not play snooker and/or have failed to grasp the concept of a "free bet" without punishment.
Playing the game is irrelevant here, though - unless you've been in the position to make a considerable sum of money by finishing off a maximum once the frame is won.
Whether the frame itself is over or not, when there's fifty grand at stake, there's plenty of pressure.
£50k, lol.. Not that common.
But that "pressure" to which you allude could be equally levelled at a coin toss for $50,000 or running 10 racks at 9 ball for a $1m
There used to be a tournament at English 8 ball that featured a "rackrunner" prize of £25,000 if you could run out 7 racks at English 8 ball pool. Closest I heard about was four on the spin.
So, in context, the factors of "pressure" are therefore equal in both games.
Coming back to my point then..
Let us take making a 147 and compare it to running 10 racks of pool to win a match. My point remains the same, from the context of a match/frame the pressure is less.
If you are building a break at snooker, you will reach the "frame won" point long before get to nearing a century, let alone a 147, therefore you are getting what is effectively a "free shot" at the century/147.
There is also no extra bonus for the century/147. You don't get anything extra. Nothing at all.
A bit of fun? A bit of practise? The simple pleasure of potting balls and making the century?
Turning back to running 10 racks in pool. We have all seen or heard of times where a player has run nine, fallen down and their opponent has stepped up and ran the ten for the match.
It's a different pressure. The game/frame is not "safe" at any point.
Is that a bit clearer?
Sorry for any confusion..
You have no idea what you are talking about. In order to make the black after every red, you have to finish high on each red. In order to make the correct angle on the next red you have to finish on the correct angle on the black. One misstep, and you end up low on a red, and you have to change your plans to go up for the blue or other colors. To consistently get the right angle (even though it's in the bottom half of the table) shot after shot and to do it for 15 reds and 15 blacks, in rounded tight pockets, is very difficult. If it was easy, you would have more 147s than centuries.
£50k, lol.. Not that common.
But that "pressure" to which you allude could be equally levelled at a coin toss for $50,000 or running 10 racks at 9 ball for a $1m
There used to be a tournament at English 8 ball that featured a "rackrunner" prize of £25,000 if you could run out 7 racks at English 8 ball pool. Closest I heard about was four on the spin.
So, in context, the factors of "pressure" are therefore equal in both games.
Coming back to my point then..
Let us take making a 147 and compare it to running 10 racks of pool to win a match. My point remains the same, from the context of a match/frame the pressure is less.
If you are building a break at snooker, you will reach the "frame won" point long before get to nearing a century, let alone a 147, therefore you are getting what is effectively a "free shot" at the century/147.
There is also no extra bonus for the century/147. You don't get anything extra. Nothing at all.
A bit of fun? A bit of practise? The simple pleasure of potting balls and making the century?
Turning back to running 10 racks in pool. We have all seen or heard of times where a player has run nine, fallen down and their opponent has stepped up and ran the ten for the match.
It's a different pressure. The game/frame is not "safe" at any point.
Is that a bit clearer?
Sorry for any confusion..
I don't really get the point you're trying to make.
If a 147 attempt is essentially a "free shot" at the prize money then so is a match in itself. If you win you get paid if you lose you don't, if you make a maximum you get paid if you fail to you don't.
Obviously there's a hell of a lot of pressure in stringing together several racks, I'm not debating that, but there's also a hell of a lot of pressure in completing a maximum.
Regarding your point about a maximum having no bearing on the match itself, the frame already being won, you could argue that that brings a whole lot of extra pressure...
Say you're racing to ten in pool and you put together a seven-pack - obviously there's always a chance that your opponent can go out there and run eight, nine or ten... but it's unlikely. The likelihood is that your seven-pack has just won you that match. You can miss and you'll probably still get the win.
Now with a maximum attempt you have one shot. The match itself isn't at stake, but you have one turn at the table to win yourself five, ten, fifty thousand pounds. One miss and that money is gone, and it's unlikely you'll get another shot at it in the course of the match. That's a different kind of pressure - one that you generally don't get when stringing together racks of pool.
I'm not arguing that a maximum brings with it more pressure than, say, and eight-pack of pool. I don't know. I haven't been in the position to really comment on either. But to think the pressure is off once you have the frame won and you're going for the 147 is folly, in my opinion.
Here is the point you are missing...
If you are on your way to a ten pack and you fall short at, say, seven, then there is still a chance your opponent can win and I put it to you that playing against a top player (SVB or Appleton say) you would no longer be favourite in the match.
But that is the difference, regardless of the chance, the odds of winning, whatever.. If a ten pack of 10-ball is, for the sake of argument, 100ish shots, you have not WON the match until the 100th shot.
A 147 is 30 odd shots but the frame is safe and therefore WON and you CANNOT LOSE IT long before you get to the century point.
Do you get my point now??
I'm not sure I can explain it any clearer.. You need to ignore the "pressure" of the money as that "pressure" can be applied equally to any sport.
TheThaiger
Banned
Nor I. So that's two of us from snooker backgrounds who don't get it.
Try telling Ken Doherty there's no pressure on a maximum.
People have to start realising pro players are playing for their livelihoods. If a player can get £147k for a single frame, that one frame suddenly becomes far more important than the tournament as a whole. Now there's less money, there's still pressure because of the prestige it brings. It's an achievement, has kudos and adds to a player's star power. It also attracts sponsors, and that means bigger payouts. It is GREATLY in the player's best interests to make maximums.
Absurd to suggest maximums don't bring pressure, and, by extension, players don't care about getting them. Complete nonsense. The atmosphere and expectancy from the crowd alone adds a load of pressure, you can feel it on TV even, so god knows what it must be like to be there doing it.
Maximum attempts are the clearest barometer of a player's class and ability to handle pressure.
Three of us with a "snooker background".
There are only so many ways you can explain a very simple and easy concept. I shall not waste any more of our time by trying further..
Edit:
PS, I could not bring myself to quote and comment your post. You were making up things I had said...
There are only so many ways you can explain a very simple and easy concept. I shall not waste any more of our time by trying further..
Edit:
PS, I could not bring myself to quote and comment your post. You were making up things I had said...
TheThaiger
Banned
Three of us with a "snooker background".
There are only so many ways you can explain a very simple and easy concept. I shall not waste any more of our time by trying further..
Edit:
PS, I could not bring myself to quote and comment your post. You were making up things I had said...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say the pressure is off a player once they had won the frame and they then became a "free roll"?
That is what a few of us were objecting to. Obviously no one is going to get marched off to the gulags if he misses the final red, but a lower ranked player losing 9-2 in the first round of the WCs is going to start feeling it as he gets to the line, despite knowing he's lost the match.
Ok, pressure is relative, but I doubt anyone on a maximum doesn't feel it in some respect - ESPECIALLY if there's big money on it.
Yes. You are indeed wrong.
Note to self. Must try harder...
I feel I must leave this debate for a while and go away and rub my chin furiously..
You are correct. I don't know what I am talking about and I will stand corrected.
I did not IS easier.
I said MIGHT be easier.
And this was in response to someone saying O'Sullivan said it wasn't much of an accomplishment.
How does black only have half a pocket? Or do you mean all the pockets are available to the other colors and not black. I would say that this is reasonable. Black is restricted from it's spot for sure and also being in the proximity of the reds makes it likely to be blocked.
However as I mentioned sometimes it's possibly easier to maintain control around the pack rather than to let the cue ball go up and down and around the table. But apparently I am wrong and it's harder to keep the cue ball in a smaller area and easier to allow it to go all around the table.
Ronnie O'Sullivan achieved a 147 in the deciding frame, I am fairly certain that Hendry achieved the same feat during a charity match (televised) against, ironically, O'Sullivan.
I can't find any evidence of this except this:
http://web.archive.org/web/20120313150035/http://www.cajt.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/champcup.html
Does anyone else recall this or is old age blurring my memory?
I can't find any evidence of this except this:
http://web.archive.org/web/20120313150035/http://www.cajt.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/champcup.html
Does anyone else recall this or is old age blurring my memory?
Good man - good find. I knew I was right!
The very first black he made,,,the ref spotted it in the center of the table. That is the first time I have ever seen that. Because there was a red ,in it's spot at the bottom.
I always though you would just offset it behind the red,,but I was wrong.
Is there a place for every color if something is in it's place?
I always though you would just offset it behind the red,,but I was wrong.
Is there a place for every color if something is in it's place?