Snooker Shoot Out

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I'm not a hearn fan so try not to let that spill into unfair criticism or undue bias on my part. Some of the things that have been done are good - the coral series for one, good idea, well executed. Globalisation is fine too, though hearn didnt create that. Snooker has been growing globally for decades, hearn just tapped into it and sped it along as it made business sense to do so and, first and foremost, hearn is a businessman.

I would slightly disgree with the oft repeated assertion that snooker would be dead only for barry hearn. He wasnt the only guy bidding for it when it came up for tender a decade ago, lot of support for the rival bid, only players being the conservative bunch they are, opted for the devil they knew. Probably no regrets on that front to be fair, but snooker would have continued on regardless.

Have to question that statement, snooker wasn’t growing globally at the time Hearn took over. In fact it was in huge trouble with massive financial losses each season. Pros were part time with at best six events per season all under the guidance of one Sir Rodney Walker suffice to stay snookers day were truly numbered when the tobacco sponsorship ban came along too. Prize money in some events was duly then made up of entry fees hence the low prize funds. Hard to really see how it would have continued.

The other rival bid never materialised as one of the bidders Brandon Parker simply didn’t have the backing. Parker is now however involved with World Snooker as a director.

Hearn won the players vote and now runs World Snooker the promotional side of the sport. The WPBSA run the playing side albeit this has changed now to the WST.

Hearn was true to his word and now players are earning massive amounts , nothing like tennis or golf stars for example but they are becoming millionaires.

Prize money has increased to almost £15 million per season and keeps increasing. Every event has a sponsor alongside minor sponsors. World Snooker have an office in Beijing further expanding its growth in the Far East.

The coaching set up which was flawed is now one of the most professionally run courses with fully qualified coaches now set up across the globe.

And it continues to grow with the recent announcement of the new event in Saudi Arabia, a ten year contract with £500K on offer for the winner.

Alongside the extended Eurosport & BBC contracts its a completely different game now to when Barry Hearn took over the promotional end of the game in 2010

Joe_ Public wrote: »

No, i wasnt referring to tour structures, but actual numbers playing the game. Don't think there's any question the game has been declining in terms of numbers here but growing exponentially across europe and Asia since the 80s or 90s. That was there to tap into. Just made sense.

There were 2 rival bids on the table, hearns and the one fronted by John Davidson. The players voted 35-29 to go with hearn. Impossible to say how it would have gone if they didnt, but the assertion made by many - including hearn himself - that he singlehandedly saved pro snooker from extinction just isnt valid.

A lot of people love him and what he's done which is fair enough. I guess I'm just old school, so find it hard to forgive what he did to the uk championships. That was a wilful act of vandalism as far as I'm concerned.

Absolutely, and you won’t meet anyone more old school than me ! But you’re correct the UK has been damaged by shortening the matches I suppose though it could have been worse and the matches could have been best of 9 but you’d never get through the matches with the old format of best of 17 especially with 128 players involved. Davidson was part of the Parker consortium but they did t have the backing and to be honest I’m happy they didn’t win the vote.

I recall Mark Allen mouthing off that it was a disgrace that Hearn was allowed take over the promotional side of the game but I always wonder what does Allen’s accountant think these days considering the money Allen has won !

Hearn likes to talk and I do enjoy listening to him as he doesn’t suffer fools gladly but in my opinion and it’s just my opinion Snooker wouldn’t be we’re it is now if he hadn’t won that vote.

As for this Shoot Out, it’s only a bit of fun, no one is forced to play in it but it’s a handy few Bob for a few frames of snooker.

Joe_ Public wrote: »

They never voted on the davison proposal, just the hearn one. So in theory if hearn had been knocked back, davison was there as a fall back. Just that hearn wasnt the only option there and pro game wasnt necessarily dead without him, thats as much as I'd say about it. The real tragedy was they'd humiliated davison when he'd first made an offer in early 00s. Game might never have needed any saving at all if players hadnt commited that gross act of stupidity.

I think allens point might have been hearn getting it too cheaply, or that there should have been a time limit on it. But those are all old battles now. I wouldnt deny a lot of progress has been made, that would be ridiculous, but there's too much about the system - uk champs, best of 7s, 128 draw, easy pockets and more - that dont sit right with me. You have a season built largely around short format and then you get to marathon of sheffield and I'm not sure players are conditioned properly for it. Not having a proper old school uk champs only exacerbates that imo.

Watched a bit of shootout earlier, great break by one of the chinese lads, probably one of the breaks of the season. Bored with it after a few matches though. Bring back Pot Black ;-)

And there’s one of the biggest misconceptions about pro snooker - easy pockets. Absolute nonsense, as I say to everyone try playing on one of those tables and you’ll see how ‘big’ the pockets are !

And yes bring back Pot Black !

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I wouldnt say its about comparing club tables to pro star tables. Its comparing the tables now to the ones maybe 10 or 15 years ago. When you hear the likes of hendry and others exclaim "how on earth did that drop?" over and over again during commentary i think its clear something is going on. Likely due to the slide off the thin cloths rather than pocket openings themselves.

Just my opinion but i dont see why they need these lightning quick cloths anyway. What was wrong that they needed to do this? Is it just so to make it easier to get tons and then proclaim how brilliant all these players are. Like i said, I'm old school, i grew up in a time when snooker was meant to be, like, really really hard!

The lighter cloths ended a lot of pro careers even before they took off ! Heavier cloths you won’t get anyway near as fast when they hold the events overseas due to humidity etc.

And with the new match cloths they finally have consistency with the speed on the bed and cushions.

Snooker still is hard, very hard, the standard is just so high now

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Perhaps. When i see a ball strike a cushion 4-5 inches before the pocket and still drop, a small bit of my snooker heart dies inside. If the standard is so incredibly high nowadays, i dont know why they need to have it like this.

Believe it or not the pockets are very tight ! All templated to the exact size, a lot smaller that your average club table ! I know only too well !

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Its not just pockets either. The balls are lighter and there's less static so its not like yesteryear when trying to split a pack you'd have to push the cue through with an almighty heave. You dont have to hit the ball that hard anymore, guys like mark allen or marco fu might have struggled in the old days with their lack of cue power. Its still an advantage to have it, but you can get by fairly ok without it on these tables.

Don’t forget the heaters under the table also