Will the World Championship Go Ahead as Normal??

It was devastating to watch 1992 and 1994. And Jimmy got hockeyed in between in 1993.

He was such a great sport joking at the end of the 94 final to David Vine: 'he's beginning to annoy me'. I was fit to throttle Hendry, only watching it on TV

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Always wonder if he'd beaten Alex in 82 how would things have worked out for him? Think he said that himself, that defeat left a mark. Missed a black off the spot while on 40 break in that frame where alex makes the clearance too. Still had to beat dracula but could have all been different for him.

He was unlucky in that almost every time he got to the final, he was up against Davis or Hendry at their peak. No disgrace in losing to them. He had chances in 1992 and 1994 but couldn’t get over the line.

The other time he got to the final was when John Parrott beat him in 1991. That was a big missed opportunity for him as it was the only time Parrott made the final.

All down to bottle with jimmy in my opinion. Agreed against Hendry & Parrot in two finals not many would have come near them. Against Davis it came down a best of three in the end . Versus Hendry in ‘92 I feel he pushed the boat out at 14-8 when realistically if he had won one of the last two and gone into the final session 15-9 I feel it was to big a climb for Hendry.

As a lot of commentators say , in a final frame all you want is a chance, in ‘94 he got his and produced one of the greatest twitches in snooker, it comes down to bottle and winners have it in abundance. Once Hendry came to the table you knew it was all over and unfortunately Jimmy did too. That was his last final and it must be heartbreaking for him to look back at.

Chalk McHugh wrote: »

For all the talk about Jimmy White being a great player his record in the big three tournaments is pretty poor. Two wins and nine losses. There are many players with more triple crown wins without his legendary status in the game. He's miles off the top players in my opinion. Nowhere near Ronnie, Hendry, John Higgins etc. Again he was a peoples favourite, a wideboy Cockney who partied hard. Bit of a bad boy but without Alex's thuggery. One thing i never liked was why he addressed the cue ball with his cue looking like it was going to rip the baize it was so low. Worked for him but never saw any player do that.

I’d always consider jimmy one of the games greats, granted he never won as many titles as the Hendrys, O’Sullivans etc and of course you’re always going to be judged on what you’ve won but I guess his longevity and what he brought to the game deserves a lot of recognition.

As his peak he was the games best cueist, his timing was faultless hence the reason he cued so low on the white, regardless of talent not many players can cue that low without the chance of a miscue. My only gripe with Jimmy is that he has continued to compete and really should have considered retirement like Davis and Hendry did. His love for the game just keeps him plugging away I guess !

FR01 wrote: »

I’d always consider jimmy one of the games greats, granted he never won as many titles as the Hendrys, O’Sullivans etc and of course you’re always going to be judged on what you’ve won but I guess his longevity and what he brought to the game deserves a lot of recognition.

As his peak he was the games best cueist, his timing was faultless hence the reason he cued so low on the white, regardless of talent not many players can cue that low without the chance of a miscue. My only gripe with Jimmy is that he has continued to compete and really should have considered retirement like Davis and Hendry did. His love for the game just keeps him plugging away I guess !

He won 2 majors. Ronnie has 19 and Hendry the same i think. And make no mistake Ronnie and Hendry and John Higgins know the value of winning the big three tournaments and give extra credit for them. And rightly so. The fact is for a legend of the game a return of two majors is pretty poor and there's no getting away from that. Not denying he was a good player. But for the big trophies he was not a great winner. And that for me is what seperates the great from the very good.

OutTheGap wrote: »

You’re right. He didn’t win nearly enough of the big titles to be considered in the really top bracket of players like Davis, Hendry, O’Sullivan and John Higgins.

But for his cueing and long potting ability combined with the flamboyant way he played the game, he will always be remembered fondly by those who saw him play at his peak.

Absolutely.

There are up to 20 players with more majors than Jimmy White. And quite a few with a lot more. Jimmy has the same as Matthew Stevens, Stuart Bingham and Dennis Taylor. All good players for sure.

Counting majors is one way of ranking greatness, obviously carries some weight. If you want that as strict criteria then you'll have Dennis Taylor above White because he won a world title and the latter didnt. We all have different ways of evaluating.

OutTheGap wrote: »

Even though he didn’t win as many World Championships as Steve Davis, I’d actually rank John Higgins higher for his longevity and the fact that the standard of snooker is higher now than in the eighties.

Hendry would have to be number one ahead of Ronnie because of his temperament and his tactical game. Ronnie was devastating at his best but could lose focus too easily sometimes. That could all change if he came back and won another world championship,

Would you not call reaching a world qf at 53 longevity? But i get your point. Personally I'd see the fact of john higgins still reaching world finals as a mark against the present standard of the game, but it's all about opinions.

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Counting majors is one way of ranking greatness, obviously carries some weight. If you want that as strict criteria then you'll have Dennis Taylor above White because he won a world title and the latter didnt. We all have different ways of evaluating.

Ronnie and Hendry evaluate like that. They are obsessed with the big three trophies. So are all the players. The majors carry a lot of weight. And rightly so. The big players wim the big prizes. Jimmy was a very good player. But not a great winner. Thats the way i see him anyway but you're right we all see it differently.

1 Ronnie
2 Hendry
3 John Higgins
4 S Davis
5 M Williams
6 M Selby
7 Trump (think he will climb this table)
8 Robertson
9 Ding
10 Jimmy

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Good point about Ken earlier. I would think top 20 for sure. Won a world title when they were hardest won, at a time when the likes of ronnie, higgins and williams were in their prime and davis and hendry were still very competitive. That was the games golden age right there.

For sure. Beating Hendry 18-12 in the final when Hendry was at his peak was some achievement. Pity he couldn’t have added a second one. Very close against Mark Williams in 2003 but it just slipped away from him at the end.

OutTheGap wrote:

For sure. Beating Hendry 18-12 in the final when Hendry was at his peak was some achievement. Pity he couldn’t have added a second one. Very close against Mark Williams in 2003 but it just slipped away from him at the end.

That missed red at 16 all still haunts me. Williams was on the ropes after a stunning comeback from the crafty one in the third session.

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

The '3 big tournaments' concept is a modern day thing though, you shouldn't really apply it too far into the past (and nor should the BBC :rolleyes:) to calculate players merit.

For example the Grand Prix was massive in the 90s, a 2 week televised event with a prize fund similar to the UK Championship. White was 2 from 3 in finals in that.

Thats grand. Fair play to him. He's a very good player. The big three are the most prestigous tournaments now. And have been for a long time. And all the players know that and are mad to win them.

Jimmy White has had 319 century breaks in 40 years of professional snooker. Crafty Ken Doherty has 346 centuries and started about 10 years after Jimmy. The tables have been in great shape since the 90s/00s. That's approx 8 centuries per season for Jimmy. It seems quite low. Ronnie hit 6 or 7 in one match once. And 4 or 5 on numerous occassions. All the top players knock them in for fun now. The conditions have been excellent for quite a while.