2019 World Snooker Championship

[Stony152]

Yes, of course he'll get the money. Won't go onto his earnings for his season as a pro next year in terms of his ranking though.

As I mentioned previously, this whole "amateur" thing is really dumb. Is he trying to make a living playing snooker? Yes. How the hell is he an amateur? If he really is an amateur he shouldn't get any money just like amateur golfers in professional tournaments don't get paid.

[Stony152]

He had to pay £700 to enter didn't he ?

I'm sure it is golf where as an amateur you aren't entitled to the prize money .

So in snooker "amateur" players pay entry fees to try to win prize money in professional tournaments. How ludicrous is that?

[Tim65]

[QUOTE=Mr Snooker;978907]As Ken mentioned Tony Knowles beating Steve Davis 10-1 in the first round when Davis was defending champion was a massive shock and I also recall the world N0 73 at the time Stefan Mazrocis beating Peter Ebdon 10-3 in the first round in 1997 when Ebdon was world N0 3. Mazrocis was having pints of larger as well during the match, which is not allowed now.[/QUOTEP

Pints of lager? Ha,you should have seen what the Hurricane used to get thru during a match!

[Billy]

But that's all that really counts. Maybe one in 100 experts would have picked Cahill to win that match. It's an amateur against the five times world champion and best player of the season.
The level of play doesn't matter at all when considering a shock or an upset.

So it's definitely an upset by any legitimate definition.

I think we might just have to agree to disagree on this one, Jim

Many people have said anyone can beat RO when his head isn’t in the right place, and if this isn’t proof of that I don’t know what is. It amuses me that people think this defeat will have annoyed RO. I’m not sure he could care less about it if he tried. If anything he’ll be getting a slight buzz from it.

[richiet]

Better in every category

[ATTACH=CONFIG]19213[/ATTACH]

Except number of frames.

Who's going home?

[richiet]

Just looked this up out of curiosity
prize money for this year is shown below:[12]

Winner: £500,000
Runner-up: £200,000
Semifinal: £100,000
Quarterfinal: £50,000
Last 16: £30,000
Last 32: £20,000



Last 48: £15,000
Last 80: £10,000
Televised highest break: £10,000
Non-televised highest break: £1,000
Total: £2,231,000

As an Amateur will James be allowed to recieve anything?

I thought that. Strictly speaking he shouldn't be allowed to take any prize money.

[Neil Taperell]

So in snooker "amateur" players pay entry fees to try to win prize money in professional tournaments. How ludicrous is that?

I agree , makes a mockery of the word ' Amateur ' . I remember that Justin Rose got nothing for his exploits at The Open .

[stephenm2682]

Didn't ros complain last year of being tired too?

[richiet]

As I mentioned previously, this whole "amateur" thing is really dumb. Is he trying to make a living playing snooker? Yes. How the hell is he an amateur? If he really is an amateur he shouldn't get any money just like amateur golfers in professional tournaments don't get paid.

He's an amateur because he hasn't got a professional tour card.

[Stony152]

He's an amateur because he hasn't got a professional tour card.

I know, but I just don't think that makes any sense. Does he play matches on the professional tour? Does he play matches on the challenge tour? Is he trying to make a living playing snooker? I think the answer to all of those questions is yes, so by any standard definition of "professional athlete" he is one. Amateurs shouldn't be paid prize money to play sports.

[Stony152]

It's really a matter of semantics. When listing such a player in a tournament just have James Cahill (nr) instead of James Cahill (a) and the problem is solved. He is a professional, but is not ranked.

[Stony152]

So much for Graeme Dott always playing well at the crucible. I didn't see any of the match, but that's a rather embarrassing scoreline.

[DeanH]

He had to pay £700 to enter didn't he ?
I'm sure it is golf where as an amateur you aren't entitled to the prize money .

I thought World Snooker had stopped the "entry fee" a season or so ago?

I know, but I just don't think that makes any sense. Does he play matches on the professional tour? Does he play matches on the challenge tour? Is he trying to make a living playing snooker? I think the answer to all of those questions is yes, so by any standard definition of "professional athlete" he is one. Amateurs shouldn't be paid prize money to play sports.

Amateurs can enter the "open" events and the Challenge events, to try their luck in getting further in the year-listing to try and gain money towards their placing.
Cahill had enough points to have a place in the WSC.

Any money won he does get, and this will be added to his 1-year listing, which could mean he gets a pro-tour card.
The pro-tour card means you have direct access to all events on the season, the closed ones as well as the open ones, with out having to do any amateur qualifying rounds.

[Shockerz]

...which tells you a lot about stats

Doesn't it just. The stats just tell a completely different reality to the result!

[Shockerz]

He had to pay £700 to enter didn't he ?

I'm sure it is golf where as an amateur you aren't entitled to the prize money .

In golf you were entitled to the prize money up to a a certain amount then you had to turn pro. In the old days it was about £600 as I was an average club player and got up to £550 with a lot of raised eyebrows.

I heard of a guy who had to turn pro to receive his prize of a new mini for a hole in one, he turned pro just for the year apparently.