snooker questions

bud green

bud green

Dolley and Django
Silver Member
Does anybody know what Karen Corr and Allison Fishers' high run at snooker is? I've been reading "On Snooker" by Mordecai Richler and also saw Stepen Hendry's accomplishments listed on "the greatest player ever thread" started a short while back (hundreds of centuries in tournement play, it's almost hard to believe) and wondered what kind of stats Allison and Karen put up as far as high run and number of centuries. Also, can anyone briefly explain the qualification process for competing in their tournements; I know a few American pros (Rempe, Massey, and a few others I think) tried to qualify but didn't have much success. I don't know if they just got outplayed or if there is something about the qualification process that makes it hard for outsiders to get in. Thanks.

p.s. The book by Richler is good but not an instructional book, more of a fans' perspective on the game.
 
I don't know about Karen but I asked Allison this one time and she told me that her high run was 145. This would be fourteen blacks with one blue in a total clearance, which is not bad - even for a chick :)

As for the qualifying, it's a nightmare, and it was especially so back then when Sigel, Rempe and Mizerak gave it a try. Players must pony up entry fees for every event ahead of time, then go and play in all the qualifying sessions for each tournament at some hotel in Blackpool. It's a situation where Monday you're playing in the Grand Prix, then Tuesday in the World Championships. If they win through to the tournament proper, they return for that event in that city whenever it takes place - which could be months later. That's how it was when I followed things anyways. It's a ridiculous concept and one of the things that hampers the sport from getting serious recognition on the lines of tennis and golf. It's run like a three ring circus, always has been, and needs a serious, serious overhaul.
 
gromulan said:
I don't know about Karen but I asked Allison this one time and she told me that her high run was 145. This would be fourteen blacks with one blue in a total clearance, which is not bad - even for a chick :)

As for the qualifying, it's a nightmare, and it was especially so back then when Sigel, Rempe and Mizerak gave it a try. Players must pony up entry fees for every event ahead of time, then go and play in all the qualifying sessions for each tournament at some hotel in Blackpool. It's a situation where Monday you're playing in the Grand Prix, then Tuesday in the World Championships. If they win through to the tournament proper, they return for that event in that city whenever it takes place - which could be months later. That's how it was when I followed things anyways. It's a ridiculous concept and one of the things that hampers the sport from getting serious recognition on the lines of tennis and golf. It's run like a three ring circus, always has been, and needs a serious, serious overhaul.
Click to expand...

Hrrm, I suppose this is why events such as the Embassy world final between Steve Davis and Dennis Taylor Was and still is the most watched sporting event ever in the history of the BBC.

I also suppose that is why the BBC chose to cover the World championships from begining to end for two solid weeks with the highest number of live hours ever devoted to a sporting event back in the 80-90's

Further I suppose this is why the likes of Hendry, Davis, Williams etc are in the millions of pounds in earnings.
I think you need to review your "facts"
 
Have to disagree with you there green guy

Howdy Gremlin:

I reckon to say that snooker is dead might be just a touch premature. Yes, as you pointed out the paying positions on both tours has been slashed. However you will find that just as many players are trying to qualify in the Pontins tourneys as ever, and the standard is getting higher (thus it is more difficult to reach to money/tv rounds). I will agree with your sentiments about the womens tour, that was extremely disappointing.

To answer the other question, because the standard of snooker is so high in the qualifiers players who do not devote their time 100% to the game will find it very difficult. For example, Johl Younger recently won one of the 9 ball tour events over here in Manchester. Yet in trying to qualify for the snooker world championship he got bumped out in the first qualifying round (10-3 I think). The Miz, Rempe et al did not devote themselves to snooker in the same way that other players do (ie move to England and play the best in the world every weekend). Thus they got slaughtered.
 
I think she's won it five times. 98, 99, 00, 02, 03

Lisa Quick won in 2001, and winning the World 8-Ball Pool title, also sponsored by Embassy, a few months later.
 
Maybe you need to review your interpretation of the facts. The 1985 final remains the benchmark for sports television in the UK, but that was almost 20 years ago! Since then viewing figures have been dropping steadily, and purse money is reaching its plateau. Sponsors are becoming harder and harder to find with the loss of Big Tobacco, and the viewers are getting bored watching so many players who are nothing more than carbon copies of one another. Snooker players earn a lot of money, but only those in the top 16 make anything significant, and only those in the top 8 or so are what I might call 'rich'. Compare that with tennis or golf where even the low ranked players are making in the high six figures and where the top ranked stars fly to their events in private jets.

Snooker is one of my great loves but the facts suggest that it is losing ground. The WPBSA didn't adequately promote the game internationally during the heyday of it's growth and will probably not get the chance again. There's a reason why Barry Hearn has invested so much in promoting pool in the UK, and that's because he sees the decline as well and is looking for the next heyday to cash in on, and he thinks pool might be it. I tend to agree from a personality point of view and while it breaks my heart to think of snooker becoming a lost art, the possibility is definately there.


Slasher said:
Hrrm, I suppose this is why events such as the Embassy world final between Steve Davis and Dennis Taylor Was and still is the most watched sporting event ever in the history of the BBC.

I also suppose that is why the BBC chose to cover the World championships from begining to end for two solid weeks with the highest number of live hours ever devoted to a sporting event back in the 80-90's

Further I suppose this is why the likes of Hendry, Davis, Williams etc are in the millions of pounds in earnings.
I think you need to review your "facts"
Click to expand...
 
Point of fact. womens snooker was never alive!, so don't even try and factor it in the equation.
Do you have any idea how much exposure snooker had during the 80-90's? tv was saturated. Is it any wonder the ratings eventually dropped off.
Having said that , here are some facts that can also be reviewed here
http://worldsnooker.com/the_game_of_snooker/aboutfact.asp

Snooker is second only to football in terms of television popularity with viewers in the UK.

There were more than 250 snooker programmes shown throughout the 1999-2000 season, which means snooker is on television more often than Eastenders or Coronation Street.

Televised tournaments generated a cumulative viewing audience of 350 million in the UK alone.

Around 32 million people - more than 50% of the UK population - tuned in to watch snooker during the course of the season.

Seven events, six of which were terrestrial and one satellite, commanded coverage totalling 356 hours and 27 minutes.


There were 86,573 seconds of clear sponsor exposure from television and the national press generated 1,525 brand mentions.

Seven tournaments produced a total media value of £7,579,226. Television achieved £6,510,724 (85.9%) and press £1,068,502 (14.1%).

Snooker is very much alive and with more expansion in the Asian and other markets I think it has a sound future.
 
Having been "in" with a lot of pro players in the past I am not dependant on info from vested intrests.
I know what kind of living the lower ranked players have.
There will be a revised ranking system and this may distribute funds lower down, remains to be seen.

Hey this is a game it's not a given that because someone is good at something they automatically become rich.
Reminds me of some of the local players that seem to think the game owes them a living.
Take a look at most of the Olympics sports/games.

Snooker in the 70's was really low key, being run by the players and a closed shop it was. It was only opened up in 1990 so it has come a long way, not bad for a game with a cheesy image.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top