Am I alone in finding it 'odd' that John Higgins lost?

by **beltic caldy** » Tue, 27 Apr 2010 13:15

This won't be contentious at all....

I am struggling to come up with a palatable solution to this conundrum - John Higgins, defending WORLD CHAMPION, world number 4....loses to (the once great, now just a shadow of his former self) Steve Davis. In point of fact, I've given up struggling.

The only explanation i can accept that fits these events is that John Higgins was approached by, say, Barry Hearn and advised that it might be v v v v good for the game as a whole (arguably a dying game) if Davis were to win. I doubt Davis will have known anything about it....but I am a loss to explain in any other way. Davis is too crap now, and Higgins is just far far too good to have missed some of the shots he missed.....without there being a deliberate component.

Also, Higgins is in the paper a couple of weeks ago quoted 'if snooker stay the way it is and keeps along this path, there will be no professional game in 10 years time' - Davis 'getting through' (Higgins throwing it) sparked massive excitement and interest.

Sigh. Watching him 'play' against Neil Roberts right now is painful - reminds of one of George Foreman's last 'title fights'....an embarassment to himself, the sport and everything else.

Interestingly, or not, I seem to pretty alone in this perspective......hmmmmmm.....anyone have any thoughts? Coke?

by **Amazing Matheja** » Tue, 27 Apr 2010 13:26

"I did it because you have more dumb luck than anyone I know." - J. Higgins III (to Magnum)

“I see a sinking ship and I don't want to be part of that.” - O'Sullivan

by **Mike Rotchtickles** » Tue, 27 Apr 2010 13:32

I don't mean to derail your thread as I have no thoughts on snooker, but just interested in that last comment regarding George Foreman.
In which fight exactly was he an embarrasment to the sport?
The way I remember it was he juiced up PPV numbers considerably and got people interested and talking again of the HW division. I mean what he did at that advanced age, was just remarkable.

by **Amazing Matheja** » Tue, 27 Apr 2010 13:33

No offense...I was just kiiding on Higgins...

And the only snooker i watched (a full match) was with O'Sullivan...The commentators explained the game well (on Eurosport) and said O'Sullivan was the M.Jordan of snooker!

It was nice to watch!A bit long though...

by **jayl0ve** » Tue, 27 Apr 2010 13:36

I'm not going to lie...I have no idea what the rules of snooker are. There is a great pool hall near my place (called 'Hard Times Billiards', kind of famous around here), and they have a snooker table there....I've watched countless games and I still have no idea what the F is going on :lol:

by **Amazing Matheja** » Tue, 27 Apr 2010 13:38

jayl0ve wrote:...I've watched countless games and I still have no idea what the F is going on

You have to place the balls in the holes... :mrgreen:

by **Amazing Matheja** » Tue, 27 Apr 2010 13:45

No,seriously,the way i saw it,it was like in a shoot them up game : you have to make CHAINS!

It was quite interesting and funny!
So (please someone correct me) i think you have to get rid of the red balls first,and you can replace yourself (respawn

) by playing the others (pink,blue,...)...Every time you put a ball in hole,you sccore points...I think you must not play the black one...Only at the end...You must finish by cleaning the remaining colors (after you did the reds) and then the black...
Am i right?Anyone?...

by **beltic caldy** » Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:04

lol!!! love the idea of snooker re-imagined in the context of modern first-person shooters/arcade games!!!!! re-spawning, chains and the like!!!

the rules are quite straightforward really (if you want convoluted billiards rules, have a look at Russian Billiards...utterly unfathomable).

The idea is simply to score more points in a game than your opponent - the balls thus have value associated with them - each red is worth '1' point - then the colours are as follows - yellow (2), green (3), brown (4), blue (5), pink (6) and black (7).

When a red is potted, it stays in the hole until next frame/game - a non-red ball comes back out and it re-spotted on it's own spot (they have their own spots, sorry) - BUT you can only only only attempt a pot on a non-red, after you've potted a red. So the chain is red,colour,red,colour,red,colour etc.

So whenever a player comes to the table, he must attempt to hit/pot a red ball.

Once ALL reds (15 of them) are gone, the player must attempt to pot the coloured (non-red) balls in specific order - the order I listed above (yellow, green, brown, blue, pink, black).

If the scores are tied once this happens, the black ball is replaced on its spot, a coin is tossed to decide the 'break' and the players play until someone pots the black, or commits a foul (scratch, etc).

It's very tactical and strategic (...in modern times = boring...!!!) - the table is big (12ft by 6ft) and the pockets are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay tighter than 9-ball tables.

Re the Foreman 'fight' (debacle) i witnessed? It was a lonnnnnnng time ago...maybe 15 years....and it was like watching Homer Simpson v Mike Tyson - Foreman took so many heavy punches straight in the face that it was ridiculous. The fight should have been stopped - it was obvious that the other guy was going to need a baseball or a gun to put Foreman down, but only cos Foreman is like a granite mountain. Don't get me wrong - his fights against Ali back in the day (rumble in the jungle....) were and are still amongst the greatest fights ever - much like Steve Davis was a genius and a titan - but not anymore, and Foreman, for the sake of his own self-respect, if not his bank-balance, did himself a cruel discredit as far as I'm concerned.

ho hum.

so - did Higgins throw the match or what? C'mon Coke man...you MUST have an opinion on this!!!!!?!?!

by **SoundfSilence** » Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:11

I can't see how someone like John Higgins would lose on purpose.. He's got too much respect for his opponent, the fans and snooker.

Yes, some shots he missed were outrageous.. he must have felt the pressure, played poorly and unfortunately for Higgins Davis did enough.

Neil Robertson nearly lost to Gould! If he had lost to Gould, would you say he tried to lose?!

by **Sherlock 117** » Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:13

Check out the rules section...not that complicated actually. Tennis scoring is far worse imo.

by **Mike Rotchtickles** » Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:14

beltic caldy wrote:Re the Foreman 'fight' (debacle) i witnessed? It was a lonnnnnnng time ago...maybe 15 years....and it was like watching Homer Simpson v Mike Tyson

I love that description.

beltic caldy wrote:- Foreman took so many heavy punches straight in the face that it was ridiculous. The fight should have been stopped - it was obvious that the other guy was going to need a baseball or a gun to put Foreman down, but only cos Foreman is like a granite mountain.

I think you might be referring to his fight with Evander Holyfield.
He got hit with everything including the kitchen sink in that one. Yet Holyfield was the one out of breath at the end of it all. :lol:

by **djarvik** » Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:36

Hey! Ain't nothing wrong with Russian billiard! :lol:

I like both really and yeah, like Sherlock said, the rules are very simple, especially comparing to tennis.

And isn't Foreman the guy who makes grills?

by **beltic caldy** » Tue, 27 Apr 2010 15:07

SoundfSilence wrote:I can't see how someone like John Higgins would lose on purpose.. He's got too much respect for his opponent, the fans and snooker.

Yes, some shots he missed were outrageous.. he must have felt the pressure, played poorly and unfortunately for Higgins Davis did enough.

Neil Robertson nearly lost to Gould! If he had lost to Gould, would you say he tried to lose?!

know what you mean bro...i don't think/say it lightly but honestly, as a seriously keen player/follower....i would bet my kidneys on Higgins winning against Davis...at any time in the last 10 years - snooker, over a large number of frames...well, you simply don't get david v goliath situations very often - the better player will usually win.

The whole feel of the match was suspect to me too - there were so many glaring misses (and really, saying Higgins was under pressure.....hmmmmm....kinda like Fed playing, I don't know....Borg maybe...sure, there'd be the 'i better not lose' pressure...but nothing like the usual pressure they encounter regularly)...and the commentators, who seemed embarrassed/confused were just a little too quick to rush to explanations for the latest incredulous miss. I remember Higgins missing more balls in that one match than I recall him missing in his entire career - he's honestly that good.

The scoreline against Roberts, who Higgins thrashed 9-0 a few months ago, may be telling - I'd be gobsmacked if Davis wins more than 2 frames - Higgins scores more heavily, has an infinitely better tactical game and a better head than Roberts......know what I mean?

I hate the thought of it, but surely just because the thought of a genuine TITAN in the game (Davis) being involved in cheating (even unknowingly) is abhorrent...and it truly is....well....it just strikes me that just because a situation is ugly, doesn't mean it should be denied out of hand. I honestly think Higgins threw the match - whether with 3rd party request/intervention or it was a personal thing (he quotes Davis as being the best player ever to live....thats Ste Hendry for my money, but never mind).

Ho Hum.

I predict final scoreline between Roberts and Davis as (it's 7-1 to Roberts at the moment) 13-2 to Roberts with Davis announcing his retirement (should tidy things up nicely re any 'ugly' questions....) immediately afterwards - watch this space.

by **beltic caldy** » Tue, 27 Apr 2010 15:16

SoundfSilence wrote:I can't see how someone like John Higgins would lose on purpose.. He's got too much respect for his opponent, the fans and snooker.

Yes, some shots he missed were outrageous.. he must have felt the pressure, played poorly and unfortunately for Higgins Davis did enough.

Neil Robertson nearly lost to Gould! If he had lost to Gould, would you say he tried to lose?!

aw man, of course not re the gould/robertson match - heart went out to Gould there - I bet he'd have paid a lot to be able to continue the match rather than break for next session - i have zero doubt that he'd have gone on to win comfortably - instead he 'looked down', as it were - went off and had time to think, and just got nervous...i reckon anyway.

by **beltic caldy** » Tue, 27 Apr 2010 15:24

djarvik wrote:Hey! Ain't nothing wrong with Russian billiard!

I like both really and yeah, like Sherlock said, the rules are very simple, especially comparing to tennis.

And isn't Foreman the guy who makes grills?

lol!!! yup, he's the grill guy now, but was one of the scariest, best boxers ever to fight (check it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WL7KnkWWXbQ&feature=fvw).

Al - if you can explain the rules of Russian Billiards in 10,000 words or less, with, say a maximum of 1,000 diagrams, I will fly to the U.S. (maybe catch a boat actually...not sure which way the wind is blowing today...) and be your man-servant for a whole month :lol:

I love the look of it...but I haven't time to do another PHD......

Am I alone in finding it 'odd' that John Higgins lost?

Am I alone in finding it 'odd' that John Higgins lost?

Who is online