BBC thinking snooker only began in 1977?

[snookerball]

Why do the BBC talk about Stephen Hendry's "record" 7 world titles and 9 world finals.

They sometimes give nod to Reardon if there feeling generous whilst discussing Steve Davis's 6, but Joe Davis's 15 world titles and Fred Davis and John Pulman's 8 world titles each (and 14 world finals and 11 world finals respectively) are completely ignored from the record books. Whilst the game was very different surely we owe it to the forefathers of snooker not to disregard their achievements?

I appreciate beating Hendry's 7 is the primary target for every snooker player, but surely the truly hungry player would have Davis's 15 in their sights?

Also as a side note while I was working all this out it occurred to me John Higgins is one final away from joining Steve Davis and Walter Donaldson on 8. If he made it this year, surely Hendry's 9 world finals would be in sight for him?

[gavpowell]

Given Joe decided who could play and the champion played either one or two matches in most of those tournaments, I think it's entirely reasonable to disregard his achievements.

[narl]

Given Joe decided who could play and the champion played either one or two matches in most of those tournaments, I think it's entirely reasonable to disregard his achievements.

I wouldn't say so, that's just the way the game was back then.

[snookerball]

Given Joe decided who could play and the champion played either one or two matches in most of those tournaments, I think it's entirely reasonable to disregard his achievements.

Oh I understand that the game was very different back then and Joe had probably more control over entrants than he should have, however surely even if realistically a bit unattainable aiming for his 15 titles should be any snooker players long term goal to retain motivation.

[Mark187187]

Oh I understand that the game was very different back then and Joe had probably more control over entrants than he should have, however surely even if realistically a bit unattainable aiming for his 15 titles should be any snooker players long term goal to retain motivation.

The first 8 of Joe's titles weren't even considered world titles at the time. It was the only 'professional' championship at the time, and was retrospectively labelled as the world championship later, by default. Some years only had one other entrant, other years were challenge events were he was only active for the final. As has been mentioned, as champion, Davis had an element of control over who he played, where he played and when he played.

Aside from the semantics, the game wasn't played to a comparable standard to the modern era in those early years. Davis won the title on occassion with a single 50 break, and that was in a best of 40 odd. His later titles were played to a higher standard, but there was still very little competition.

He was, indeed, a pioneer of the game. But, you can't compare his titles to the modern era, where many club players would give him a decent challenge.

[snookerball]

The first 8 of Joe's titles weren't even considered world titles at the time. It was the only 'professional' championship at the time, and was retrospectively labelled as the world championship later, by default. Some years only had one other entrant, other years were challenge events were he was only active for the final. As has been mentioned, as champion, Davis had an element of control over who he played, where he played and when he played.

Aside from the semantics, the game wasn't played to a comparable standard to the modern era in those early years. Davis won the title on occassion with a single 50 break, and that was in a best of 40 odd. His later titles were played to a higher standard, but there was still very little competition.

He was, indeed, a pioneer of the game. But, you can't compare his titles to the modern era, where many club players would give him a decent challenge.

Surely by this logic we can't compare the 80s when half the players were coked up or punch drunk and getting by on their personas whenever they went to the table to the current, more professional game?

When do we start counting records from on this winding road of logic?

[Cue crafty]

I get where you are coming from. Aspirations are what give great players a bench mark to reach, however within our era, Hendrys 7 wins from 9 finals is it. Big nod to Joe the godfather of course, but 15 WC's is now unobtainable. Maybe 15 "triple crowns" or whatever become considered "major" titles is comprable so consider ROS on 19?

[snookerball]

I get where you are coming from. Aspirations are what give great players a bench mark to reach, however within our era, Hendrys 7 wins from 9 finals is it. Big nod to Joe the godfather of course, but 15 WC's is now unobtainable. Maybe 15 "triple crowns" or whatever become considered "major" titles is comprable so consider ROS on 19?

I think 8 is definitely obtainable if we get another absolute dominator, particularly once the class of 92 eventually retire (but we've been saying this since the mid-2000s) whilst I don't think it would be good for the game for that to happen.

[Mark187187]

Surely by this logic we can't compare the 80s when half the players were coked up or punch drunk and getting by on their personas whenever they went to the table to the current, more professional game?

When do we start counting records from on this winding road of logic?

Well, that logic isn't really the same as mine. A better comparison would be between part-time english footballers of the same era compared to the proffesional players post WW2 when football globalised. I'm sure there were some massively talented players in the interwar period, but you can't really draw a comparison.

1980s snooker players had the numbers, financial incentive, and opportunity to prove themselves as genuinely the best in the world at the time, and not simply by a default because no one else was playing the game, and those few that were couldn't knock in a 50 break over 40 frames.

[John Flaf]

You can't compare the 'old' to the 'new' really, Joe and his challengers played with Ivory balls, wonder how a top player, say Trump, for instance would get the screw, top, side into the power of a shot hitting Ivory, somehow I doubt they would have the same control as with an Aramith 1g ball

[Mark187187]

You can't compare the 'old' to the 'new' really, Joe and his challengers played with Ivory balls, wonder how a top player, say Trump, for instance would get the screw, top, side into the power of a shot hitting Ivory, somehow I doubt they would have the same control as with an Aramith 1g ball

They didn't use ivory balls in these tournaments. Joe turned professional in 1929. Ivory balls weren't used in professional snooker (or billiards) after 1928. By 1930 the production of new ivory balls had almost entirely ceased.

[100-uper]

They didn't use ivory balls in these tournaments. Joe turned professional in 1929. Ivory balls weren't used in professional snooker (or billiards) after 1928. By 1930 the production of new ivory balls had almost entirely ceased.

Ivory balls were never used for professional snooker. Even the Tournaments run by Thurston and Burroughes & Watts in th early 1900s used composition balls for these games.

[Mark187187]

Ivory balls were never used for professional snooker. Even the Tournaments run by Thurston and Burroughes & Watts in th early 1900s used composition balls for these games.

Thank you, I didn't know that. I knew they were still using ivory balls in professional billiards up till 1928, and presumed, incorrectly, the same for snooker.

[John Flaf]

Well I've been sorted out Thanks for clarifying 100 and Mark.