[Snooker] Ronnie O'Sullivan passes up maximum break because prize is too cheap

[Slant]

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/201...-147-too-cheap

So, basically, O'Sullivan had the (rare) opportunity to score the maximum points on a break, but decided not to because the prize (10,000 Pounds) was too cheap. What I want to talk about is the last quote in that article:

“It’s a shame that punters who buy tickets and TV fans who watch did not have the pleasure of seeing a maximum break. Players have a duty to the fans to deliver the best standard and entertainment they can. Anything less than playing to your best ability is unacceptable and disrespectful to the paying public. This is not crime but a shame.”

Personally, I don't follow snooker all that much. But this news made even German major newspapers. So in a sense, O'Sullivan did more for the promotion of Snooker than if he had made (yet another) maximum break. Hearn was wrong. What do you think? I find this irony rather amusing...

[Deleted]

Snooker is a difficult one, but I wouldn't say it was wrong for him to not go for the 147. At the end of the day its a risk/reward thing and maybe he didn't feel like it was worth it.

I think the problem is that he said it was because of the money. We know his Snooker playing past has been a bit of a funny one, giving his longstanding battle with depression and losing all passion for the game at periods, so to him it may be more a case of the money, but making it so black and white like that undermines the tournament and casts a shadow over the sport. There probably was more to it than that.

Either way, 147s are fun for the spectators, yes, but Ronnie has done more for the sport than most and just watching him is a thrill, if Snooker is your thing (it is for me), so I don't really feel he owes anyone anything. It also didn't change the outcome of the frame or the match, which is where most athletes are demanded to always to do their best so they aren't fixing potential outcomes (I remember some of the far eastern teams throwing games to play the knockout draws for badminton in 2012 Olympics).

It's very grey, but I would tell him to watch his words, not to change how he chooses to play. I think some of it is down to who he is because he is one of the most risk taking and flashiest players so the safety shot was more out of character than it would be for most.


Edit:

So I read a little more and noticed how the pricing for a 147 works and it actually swings it a little more in favour of Ronnies perspective. For every tournament without a 147, £5k is added to the 147 prize pool. The last winner received £44k, which is more appropriate. Maybe its not just Ronnie specifically but he might have held back so that it is a bigger pool when that 147 does come through, whoever wins it. Just speculation though, but knocking in 147s more regularly does knock how special they are down a peg or two.

[Slant]

So I read a little more and noticed how the pricing for a 147 works and it actually swings it a little more in favour of Ronnies perspective. For every tournament without a 147, £5k is added to the 147 prize pool. The last winner received £44k, which is more appropriate. Maybe its not just Ronnie specifically but he might have held back so that it is a bigger pool when that 147 does come through, whoever wins it. Just speculation though, but knocking in 147s more regularly does knock how special they are down a peg or two.

That's interesting. Snooker being a niche sport kinda means that prizes are pretty low overall, though, aren't they? How much for a typical masters tournament?

[Millennía]

The Masters and the World Championship are two of the biggest. First prize ranges from £200,000 to £300,000. The 147 prize just a few years ago was £147,000 so it has been coming down a lot. What Ronnie did was a protest to the current prize system for a maximum. He said that maximums are still quite rare, even today, so the prize should reflect that

[Wezmon]

He's done exactly the same thing before (although did finally do the 147)

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/201...rd-147-referee

Lets be honest Ronnie has always been a loose cannon, the guy clearly has serious mental issues and if he didn't have the greatest natural talent for snooker you dread to think where he would have ended up (i'm guessing prison). I often wonder how good he would be if he had hendry's or davis' drive. Scary.

[Slant]

You make him sound like a criminal. I don't think that's appropriate.

[Wezmon]

Well he isn't a criminal, I suggested in another life he may have become one. Not through his fault but a combination of poor mental health and a horrific upbringing. Both his parents spent long times in prison (his dad was a murderer involved with gangsters, mother for tax evasion, sister getting involved in drug dealing). I love watching the guy play but I always feel sad he never had the mentality to really want to win, he would have been a player the world would never see again.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

Well he isn't a criminal, I suggested in another life he may have become one. Not through his fault but a combination of poor mental health and a horrific upbringing. Both his parents spent long times in prison (his dad was a murderer involved with gangsters, mother for tax evasion, sister getting involved in drug dealing). I love watching the guy play but I always feel sad he never had the mentality to really want to win, he would have been a player the world would never see again.

Yeah, when O'Sullivan is on his game the shots he can play are sublime. He also toys with his opponent, giving them a couple of frames only to win the next four in a row with century breaks. If he had the "I will win everything" mentality, nobody would have won a tournament other than O'Sullivan in the last decade.

[Deleted]

I don't really get Hearn's argument, yeah a 147 is memorable, but so is being there when a player deliberately goes for a 146 instead. Perhaps even more so.