Talk:Maximum break/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Early comments
ResolvedNice article! I think it's fine as it is, linked from Snooker. It's a bit too esoteric to go into the body of the main article. In fact, I'd remove most of the stuff about 155 from the main article, leaving not much more than a link.
I've been intending for a while to write something about "147" (how to achieve it, first recorded 147, first televised, etc.). Do you think it should be merged with this article, or is it a separate article entirely? --Auximines 11:50, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
- Ah great it looks like you've hit upon a good solution. I was tentative about whether this stuff was appropiate at snooker for two reasons. Firstly as you say it is a bit esoteric, and second there are other articles which might link directly into this topic, Tony Drago for example. On the other hand, it was only half a topic. Your proposal to extend to include all the facts about 147 breaks looks like a good solution. As for the name, we can't go for plain 147, but 147 (snooker) would be ok. Maybe maximum snooker break would be better than highest as they use the word "maximum" in snooker circles. In any case it would be good to have redirects to/from all three possibilities. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
A small point -- 'normal circumstances'? There's nothing particularly abnormal about a free ball situation. In fact, it's an everyday part of the game. Maybe change this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.225.9 (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Missing 147s?
ResolvedThe list in this article is incomplete, I believe. For example, Bjorn Haneveer (a Belgian player) made a 147 during the 2003 European Championship, but I can't find it in the list. 81.165.240.64 19:05, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
And John Higgins made a maximum at the 2000 Benson&Hedges Irish Masters at Goffs,Co.Kildare and it isn't on the list either.--Fenian Swine 01:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- It was there, but as B&H Masters; fixed now.--Ian Cheese 01:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Here's a good page listing (probably) all 147s.--Ian Cheese 01:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- The youngest televised maximum break should be Andrew Higginson during this year's Welsh Open. Broadcast on Eurosport. oops.. of course age was meant here. Perhaps a more unambiguos phrasing. Obviously my misreading, though. [The previous unsigned post was posted by 84.170.86.204 (talk · contribs), 12:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)]
Jamie Cope 155 break
ResolvedI did some checking and there is some discussion of Cope's 155 break in the summer of 2005 in this article in the Guardian. -- Solipsist 16:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- According to this article he also made a 151 back in April 2003. Ian Cheese 16:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Big breaks on TV
ResolvedAlthough I don't have time to find a reference at the moment, I'm sure I read somewhere that Alex Higgins managed a 135 16-red clearance on TV (and the only televised 16-red clearance. GalaxiaGuy 15:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- http://www.snooker.org/Plr/records.shtml "The first 16 red clearance in a tournament was by Steve James (b. 2 May 1961) who made 135 against Alex Higgins in the World Professional Championships at Sheffield, S Yorks on 14 Apr 1990." I'm assuming that was on TV...
200+ century makers
ResolvedA BBC commentator recently said that only half a dozen players had made over 200 century breaks in professional competition. He only mentioned Peter Ebdon, but I know Steve Davis and Stephen Hendry also have 200+. Does anyone have the full details?; it would make interesting reading. 86.17.246.75 23:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- Ronnie is second to Hendry on the all-time list. I think the others are John Higgins and Mark Williams, but I'd need to check this. [The previous unsigned comment was posted by MartinUK (talk · contribs), 13:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)]
John Spencer 147?
ResolvedI had heard that the first 147 in a televised match was made by John Spencer, but unfortunately the television crew were taking a tea break at the time so it wasn't captured. Can anyone confirm or deny this, or give more details? Hv 13:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- That's.. unlucky. According to this page, Spencer was playing Cliff Thorburn in the Holsten Lager Tournament on 13 January 1979, and it was the first maximum in competitive play. Worth mentioning, then. Flowerparty☀ 14:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- And also unfortunately for Spencer, he was the opponent when the first televised 147 break was made, by Steve Davis at the Lada Classic in 1982. SteveO, 02:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've removed this break. The table had oversized pockets and so it wasn't ratified. [2] Ian Cheese 19:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
162 break
ResolvedI've removed the paragraph about achieving a 162 break:
Theoretically there is an even higher possible break which would result from an implausible sequence of events: Player "A" concedes a total of 159 points through persistent foul shots during which time neither player lawfully pots a ball (score 0-159). Player "B" then fouls (4 points) and, as a result, player "A" is awarded a free ball (score 4-159). As in the above scenario player "A" pots a free ball and a black, followed by 15 reds 15 blacks and all the colours thus accumulating 155 points (score 159-159). The black is re-spotted and player "A" wins the toss and opts to play. Player "A" pots the black and thus accumulates a total break of 162.
This is incorrect: player "A" would record a 155 break before the black is respotted, then the subsequent pot on the black would be recorded as a separate break of 7. Interesting scenario, though! Javacava 00:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- oops - I put a paragraph about a 162 break in without spotting the earlier insertion and removal. Is the re-spot definitely considered a separate break? Is there a definitive reference for this? Plus mine is wrong, I cite 155 instead of 159. [The previous unsigned comment was posted by SexyBern (talk · contribs), 22:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)]
- 162 is the maximum theoretical 'score', a 'break' is the score during one visit to the table, each new visit to the table begins a new 'break' from zero. So in this case potting the final black would give a score of 162 but the break remains 7 for potting the black. [The previous unsigned comment was posted by 86.142.54.10 (talk · contribs), 16:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)]
- Not true, the respotted black counts in the break, as it is still 'one visit'. The player who draws the score level when potting the black continues his break with the respotted black. There is no toss as above. [The previous unsigned comment was posted by 138.253.45.224 (talk · contribs), 10:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)]
- Someone needs to find and cite a source on this. I tend toward 86.142.54.10's view, but I don't have a source to cite on that either. Regardless, it needs to get settled and the article needs to account for what the facts are on this issue. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please sign your posts! The above
iswas virtually impossible to figure out, as far as who is saying what. I'll try to figure it out from the edit history. (Done.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Updated 21:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- I see that another description of the 162 break has appeared on the main page! I was responsible for the first description (above) which was removed from the main page in December 2006. I can't find out whether the re-spotted black counts in the break but, if someone is able to confirm this, I would request that my original paragraph is re-inserted into the main description. Bigged1972 31st March 2007
- Sounds to me like it should just be removed again, until sourceable. If it's sourced, you can restore your version yourself, from the edit history. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I missed all this talk about the 162 break before I made my edit - not because I didn't look, but because I had 163 in my head. 86.31.206.92 spotted my poor sums and changed it. My second re-entering of it was because I then looked for an User talk:Ian Cheese edit on the talk page, and on not finding it, just undid his change. Anyway, for what it's worth I seem to recall David Vine talking to some player and/or ref back in the eighties, and whilst I don't recall the actual outcome, I certainly don't recall it as being a definite 'no way'. Regards, Mannafredo (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Surely this is wrong, wiki. A respot black means the players break has ended. A tossed coin is used to decide who plays the final black. This doesn't work. The break would still be 155 but the points would end 162-155 etc. [The preceding unsigned comment was added into the article by 91.84.88.120 (talk · contribs), 19:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC); it was refactored to the talk page where it belongs and given a topic heading and a parseability puntuation fix by — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC).]
The infinite break?
ResolvedThey mentioned this on the snooker coverage recently... there is a rule where, if when a colour is potted the referee mistakenly respots a red instead of the colour and the red is later moved, when it is found that a mistake has been made, the colour is simply respotted and the surplus red remains on the table. Steve Davis pointed out that this could lead to an infinite break through repetition. Is this worthy of mention? 88.108.131.239 14:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- No. That is something that will never happen unless the referee has down's syndrome, and I'm pretty certain that "rule" doesn't exist either. Marcus1234 17:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Made part of discussion collapsed, as Geoffry Hilt has nothing to do with maximum break and he is not notable by Wikipedia standard. Armbrust Talk Contribs 13:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
|
|---|
:::Please give advice for a more suitable place to note Geoffry Hilt and his accomplishments as an ambassador for people with Downs Syndrome (Category 3 and above) within Snooker and the refereeing of snooker. |
- As a review of recent edit summaries shows, this has gottent contentious. My take is that the (verification needed) sourcing so far does suggest that this could plausibly happen, once. I think that the sourced version extant as of my last edit explicates the possibility well enough while removing the "this could happen to infinity!!!" slaphappy nonsense. As a point of potential fact, it seems worth nothing, without delving further into "pricks!" language. Yes? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Clarification: I'm responding here to article edit summary hostilty, not to anything said above on this talk page. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- I saw the piece on TV too, it was presented by Jan Verhaas ("one of the most respected referees in world snooker", Wikipedia) as an unusual situation which could confuse referees who were not 100% clear on the rules. After the piece finished Hazel Irvine asked Steve Davis if he knew that, to which Davis replied that he didn't and further commented that it could theoretically increase the maximum break from 155 to infinity. Irvine then mentioned that it would cause pub-quiz arguments.
- I saw the show too. It was all quite tongue-in-cheek, but a genuinely interesting point, and since this article is relatively limited in its scope for informative angles, I would include a mention of this. It could be gestured as a point of note that potentially a really idiotic referee could precipitate this scenario ad infinitum, but only because it is possible, which cannot be denied. The main part should explain that it is more likely, if still extremely, extremely, extremely unlikely, that a 155 situation could be increased to a 163 in this way. The omission of such an interesting quirk of the game, and in an article of this nature, as far as I'm concerned, would be a shame considering the main authors of the article are aware of the phenomenon. Kris 21:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- I remain opposed to the
"inifity""infinity" silliness. It isn't theoretically possible at all, because there is no such thing as an infinite snooker match. Even at the most ridiculously hypothetical limits, the match could only go on as long as the players remained alive, and none of us are immortal. Ergo, no infinity stuff. It would be sufficient to illustrate the effect on the numbers once. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- I remain opposed to the
- I saw the show too. It was all quite tongue-in-cheek, but a genuinely interesting point, and since this article is relatively limited in its scope for informative angles, I would include a mention of this. It could be gestured as a point of note that potentially a really idiotic referee could precipitate this scenario ad infinitum, but only because it is possible, which cannot be denied. The main part should explain that it is more likely, if still extremely, extremely, extremely unlikely, that a 155 situation could be increased to a 163 in this way. The omission of such an interesting quirk of the game, and in an article of this nature, as far as I'm concerned, would be a shame considering the main authors of the article are aware of the phenomenon. Kris 21:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- I saw the piece on TV too, it was presented by Jan Verhaas ("one of the most respected referees in world snooker", Wikipedia) as an unusual situation which could confuse referees who were not 100% clear on the rules. After the piece finished Hazel Irvine asked Steve Davis if he knew that, to which Davis replied that he didn't and further commented that it could theoretically increase the maximum break from 155 to infinity. Irvine then mentioned that it would cause pub-quiz arguments.
- Well the break certainly couldn't go to "inifity" since such a word doesn't exist, if we're going to get bogged down with captious pernicketiness. Sorry about that, I heard the groans as that shot landed below the belt. Back on-subject: it's a scenario whereby the break can potentially go on for as long as the player wants to, just like in billiards or straight pool. The point is that there is no defined maximum, not that you can actually achieve a score of infinity. The term I used was ad infinitum anyway, with implications simply towards an indefinite time into the future. If mathematicians were allowed to disprove theories using the infinity paradox like you tried above, it would be a farce, sirrah! We all know that it would never happen, it's just pointing out a quirk of the rules more than anything else. If it's something you feel strongly about, then don't put it in, all the same to me. I just think it's interesting and warrants a mention. Kris 15:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ad infinitum is simply Latin for "to infinity". Mathematicians don't say "infinity" unless they actually mean it. :-) I do feel strongly about it; encyclopedia articles should not mislead their readers. I agree that the fact that this rules quirk can cause this to happen even once is indeed interesting, and does warrant a mention; it is relevant here. Simply illustrating the point once should be enough to convey this, and even convey that it could potentially happen more than once in a row, unlikely as that is. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Note: WilliamMelvin under various IP address guises keeps appearing to re-insert the "infinity" version. I assert that this edit has no consensus and in fact is subject to ongoing debate. Just for the record. I think it is silly almost to the point of ridiculousness. This is an encyclopedia, which is supposed to present informative content, not a blog for people to express their whims and personally amusing notions. NB: Said user has presented the arugment that one or another party (the story seems to vary; first it was the Dutch judge, and this time it's a player - make up your mind) actually mentioned the word "infinity". This is a clear "so what" situation. Just because something can be plausibly sourced does not make it encyclopedic. The fact that a reference exists somewhere for a point in question does not mean that the point must be included in article. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- I sometimes get bored in discussions like this since we seem to just go full circle, and my sentiments are often miscontrued along the way. Let's break it down into some nice, easily comprehensible take-home points:
- I totally agree that the concept is absurd and of course it would never happen.
- It is, however, an interesting quirk in the rules, nothing more, and I think it deserves a mention.
- It is particularly interesting because of the associated trivia with maximum breaks, which a lot of people already know, i.e. the free ball 155 situation. Not many people will know about this extension of the 155 break even further, and it would make compelling reading for a snooker fan.
- I think that noting how snooker breaks can, in theory, go on indefinitely in this way (however fanciful a notion) is not necessarily a conclusion every casual reader would come to if the paragraph only explained how it could happen once.
- For me, all it would do is simply provide a fuller explanation of the rule's possible consequences, and is better than letting readers hypothesize themselves that it could perpetuate.
- Why not mention that it could perpetuate? It's just one line, and we're not stating anything too controversial there. We can even disparage the idea as something that realistically could never happen.
- I agree that the term 'infinity' should be avoided. My time studying for a degree in mathematics has taught me this, and yes, I do indeed only ever use it when I mean it. Luckily such occasions are rare since I dislike the subject and have moved away from mathematical circles!
- The principle of the point, for me, is purely that it's a rules loophole, and if written appropriately would not mislead people into thinking such a situation could genuinely transpire.
- Having found myself at the bottom of this rather large reply I feel I should still note that whether you actually end up including it is still no biggie to me, I think I must just be arguing for the fun of it now...
- Kris 15:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- I sometimes get bored in discussions like this since we seem to just go full circle, and my sentiments are often miscontrued along the way. Let's break it down into some nice, easily comprehensible take-home points:
Highest/lowest frame score
ResolvedIs there also a record for the highest and lowest score in a frame? 84.189.89.170 22:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously with fouls, the scores in a frame could keep rising indefinitely, without a ball being potted. It seems unlikely that someone could accumulate more than 147 points in fouls in a professional tournament, but perhaps a player has completed a high century break after being given 14 or 21 points in fouls. A snooker Q and A page online gives a theoretical minimum frame score of 16-15, but it requires all 15 reds being potted in one (foul) shot. Perhaps this page could be renamed to "Exceptional snooker breaks" in order to expand its scope. 16:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.221.158 (talk)
fastest 147 videos
Resolvedthe 2nd and 3rd fastest 147 break videos are broken:
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/39127000/rm/_39127415_sport_ronnie_vi.ram
- http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1605000/video/_1605223_osullivan147_vi.ram
Fegor (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've removed the whole section as I don't know if it's correct anymore, and two of the links are broken.
Ian Cheese (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Number of 147s
ResolvedAs of March 29, 2008 after Stephen Maguire's 147 in China, the WSA gives a number of 61 147s so far @[3], while this page has 62. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.227.253.145 (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Progression of highest break
ResolvedThe article seems to read that the highest break ever made was 147 and nothing came before it. From the Guinness Book of Snooker, there is an article relating to the progression of the Highest Break - is this relevant? Also further reference at [4]
- 1907 - 73 by John Roberts
- 1908 - 73 by James Harris
- 1910 - 99 by Sir Charles Kirkpatrick
- 1930 - 105 by Joe Davis
- 1933 - 109 by Joe Davis
- 1933 - 114 by Joe Davis
- 1936 - 114 by Horace Lindrum
- 1936 - 131 by Horace Lindrum
- 1936 - 133 by Sidney Smith (first official total clearance, and on same evening as Lindrum's 131)
- 1937 - 135 by Joe Davis
- 1938 - 137 by Joe Davis
- 1938 - 138 by Joe Davis
- 1947 - 140 by Joe Davis
- 1949-50 - 144 by George Chenier (possibly unofficial)
- 1949-50 - 146 by Joe Davis
- 1954-55 - 146 by Joe Davis
Seedybob2 (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes this is interesting! Add to the list:
| Break points |
Year |
Date | Record holder |
Opponent player |
Event | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 147 | 1955 | January 22 | Joe Davis | Willie Smith | Exhibition match[clarification needed] | |
| 148 | 2004 | October | Jamie Burnett | Leo Fernandez | UK Championship | qualifying rounds |
- I suggest breaks made at practice should not be in this list, only breaks from real matches. But that depends on the breaks you have in your list. If many of them are made at practice matches then I guess practice scores have to be allowed. And allow the same score only once: If John Roberts did 73 in 1907 it is he who broke the record, and it is not of interest that James Harris also did 73 one year afterwards. And I also like a table like this but probably not all information can be filled in so many cells have to be left blank. (Or if info is missing then maybe it cannot be trusted and the whole row should be deleted?) Najro (talk) 11:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Move article
ResolvedI propose moving this article to maximum break, and rearranging the content so that the article has a proper lead section per WP:LEAD. Almost every instance of a link to this article is done as [[Highest snooker break|maximum break]] and no one is going to come to Wikipedia and enter "highest snooker break" instead of "maximum break" as a search term, so the article title is less than useful. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The difference between the current and proposed versions can be seen here, including a bunch of other cleanup in addition to fixing the lead. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
PS: The current article title self-evidently (see higher up on talk page) has a tendency to inspire random people to propound their own novel theories about what the "true" highest snooker break is. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I moved the page. I'll let someone else handle the lead, though. Roman à clef (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
We'll see
ResolvedAs bighead says I clearly do not know what I am talking about, I guess he will revert my change to the article, even though I fixed something that didn't make sense Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Reason for revert
ResolvedI have reverted User:Armbrust's reversion of my edit to Maximum break, regarding West scoring 151. He reverted to the extremely ambiguous version saying West "took the green as the free ball and then went on to clear the table." We don't know the colour of the free ball nominated by West -- (the reference doesn't work) -- but even if was the green it is 'irrelevant' because it was scored only one point. The scoring sequence was that West potted a coloured ball (his free ball) for one point, then potted a green for three points, and then scored a further 147 points by clearing the table. It is unambiguous and informative to simply say "West potted the green after his free ball and then cleared the table" That's why I have replaced my (slightly amended) version. Sure, we could say he "sank the green as his free ball, then potted the green again as his colour, and then cleared the table", but it would be unecessarily verbose. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- To quote from the referenced article itself: "At the start of their peculiar frame, before a ball had been potted, Rogers played a foul shot. This gave West, who died this week aged 61, a free ball - in effect an extra red. West took the green as the free ball and then went on through the reds and the colours to clear the table, thus exceeding the traditional maximum possible score of 147."
- Your description is clearly inaccurate. It is not clear which ball West took after his free ball. It could have been a green, it could easily have been a black or any of the coloured balls. There are two things the article makes clear. The free ball was green, and after potting it he went on to clear the table to make a break of 151. The way you are wording it does not tie up with reference and makes unvalidated assumptions.
Betty Logan (talk) 01:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Speaking of "unvalidated assumptions", you assume that the reference is logical where it says "West took the green as the free ball and then went on through the reds and the colours to clear the table.....". After potting his free ball he still needed to sink a colour before going "on through the reds and the colours to clear the table". Right? So it wasn't until after he sank his second ball that he could set to amongst the reds/colours. Conceded, his second ball could have been green through black, but that is immaterial to my contention that he did not clear the table after potting his free ball. That is what the article says, and it is demonstrably false. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- It states that after he potted the free ball he went on "through the reds and colours to clear the table" which is what he did do and is grammatically correct English. The article is clear and backed up by several other references. Newspapers such as The Independent and the Daily Mail are perfectly acceptable sources so if you want to alter the section you will have to find a source to back up your claims because what you are stating is clearly at odds with all the available references. It is actually impossible for a 151 break not to be the result of total clearance, because you have to clear to the final black to make that score, so to say that he didn't clear after taking the free ball is demonstrably untrue. Betty Logan (talk) 04:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Bets, I appreciate it when someone else edits an article to prove my point for me. I am referring to you editing the article so that it no longer says what you claim a few lines above this, that after the free ball he went through the reds and colours and cleared the table. Impossible, of course, because after his free ball he had to hit a colour, not a red. Explaining the sequence of his shots is also a helpful improvement. All's well that ends well.Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 09:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- It states that after he potted the free ball he went on "through the reds and colours to clear the table" which is what he did do and is grammatically correct English. The article is clear and backed up by several other references. Newspapers such as The Independent and the Daily Mail are perfectly acceptable sources so if you want to alter the section you will have to find a source to back up your claims because what you are stating is clearly at odds with all the available references. It is actually impossible for a 151 break not to be the result of total clearance, because you have to clear to the final black to make that score, so to say that he didn't clear after taking the free ball is demonstrably untrue. Betty Logan (talk) 04:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Speaking of "unvalidated assumptions", you assume that the reference is logical where it says "West took the green as the free ball and then went on through the reds and the colours to clear the table.....". After potting his free ball he still needed to sink a colour before going "on through the reds and the colours to clear the table". Right? So it wasn't until after he sank his second ball that he could set to amongst the reds/colours. Conceded, his second ball could have been green through black, but that is immaterial to my contention that he did not clear the table after potting his free ball. That is what the article says, and it is demonstrably false. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Near Misses
ResolvedIs it worth having a few bullet-pointed 'near misses'? Eg Ken Doherty missing a maximum on the black, Ronnie O'Sullivan and Stuart Bingham on the pink, Ronnie missing 2 in 2 frames at the 2010 Welsh Open. I reckon it would be an interesting little addition to the article, what does everyone think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.163.157 (talk) 08:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Near misses aren't particularly notable, and there's probably been hundreds over the years. Ebdon seems to have a near miss every tournament. As far as I know Doherty is the only player to miss the final black on TV which perhaps could be included as a notable point, but thats about it. Betty Logan (talk) 08:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
147 under duress
ResolvedIs it worth mentioning Ronnie O'Sullivan's latest (and in fact record-breaking 10th) 147, where he couldn't bothered to pot the black because the reward was only £4,000, and had to be persuaded by the referee? [5] 81.142.107.230 (talk) 13:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think not. Armbrust Talk Contribs 13:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- This is a statistical article so it's not really that relevant. Stick it in his profile if you feel it is notable enough to be documented. Betty Logan (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Matthew Stevens 147+ break?
ResolvedI was watching a snooker match on eurosport when the commentators told about matthew stevens making a 147+ break in a practice match I can't find it on this page does anyone know about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.168.31.172 (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't hear about it, but if you have a reliable source for it, than feel free to add it. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 16:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Multiple maximums in the same event
ResolvedIn the records section it says that more than one maximum has been made in the same event on three occasions. However, maximums were also made in the qualifiers for the 2000 Scottish Open, 2007 Grand prix and the 2008 Bahrain championship, and then a maximum was also made in those events at the venue stages as well. Are we treating qualifiers and the televised stages as "different" events? It appears to me these should be classed as same events, but different venues like the 1992 Premier League. Betty Logan (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- I completely agree with you. This should be corrected. Sir Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 06:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)