29.4.09

THE FORGOTTEN WORLD CHAMPION

The tournament sponsors, Betfred, have had t-shirts produced bearing the image of every world champion since the tournament started in 1927.

Or rather, every world champion but one.

Missing is Horace Lindrum, the 1952 champion.

If Neil Robertson does win the title this year he will not be the first Australian to have his name engraved on the famous old silver trophy.

But Lindrum’s victory is to this day controversial. It came about because of a disagreement between the players and the then governing body that led to all the leading cuemen of the time boycotting the official World Championship to instead play in a World Matchplay Championship won by Fred Davis.

Lindrum thus played Clark McConachy, a player well past his best, for the ‘official’ title.

This would be like Robertson playing, for example, Tony Knowles for this year’s title when all the other top players had their own event.

For this reason, many refuse to acknowledge Lindrum’s victory.

However, his name is on the trophy. When I raised the issue with Joe Johnson, the 1986 world champion, in commentary this week, he said: “If his name’s on the trophy, that means he won it.”

27 comments:

Anonymous said...

Gets overshadowed by firstly Cliff Thorburn who is often described as first champion not from 'British isles' in 1980; then Eddie Chartlton (read some Australian obits) and they were happy that he won the world championships one year in the 1970s- whereas many think it was a world matchplay type event. Few ever mention this man but Joe Johnson's comments ring true.

Anonymous said...

then again Joe is in the eurosport team

can we get quotes from the last 7 champions to see if its balanced?

obviously his name is on the trophy and that is because he won it, so Joe isnt correct but he isnt really stating an opinion on whether he recognises it. all he is doing is stating a fact. he did win it. it is the acknowledgement thats the question...

Dave H said...

Actually Joe was stating an opinion - that Lindrum's victory should count

And I used the anecdote as 'balance' against the widely held view that it shouldn't

Greg said...

Hmmm... considering that Joe's name also only appears on the trophy once, you'd think he would want to emphasise the gulf in credibility rather than downplay it!

RichP said...

Tony Knowles past it? He's the super-six champion and most recent winner at the crucible!

Anonymous said...

On wikipedia for all its faults the view is-

Nowadays, Lindrum's title win is ignored, with Cliff Thorburn and Ken Doherty usually regarded as the only overseas World Champions

Anonymous said...

Dave H said...
Actually Joe was stating an opinion - that Lindrum's victory should count

And I used the anecdote as 'balance' against the widely held view that it shouldn't

1:09 PM


the only part in quotations youve put that joe says is him saying a statement of fact.

ie - his name wouldnt be on the trophy if he hadnt won it

so, i dont think it gives anything away about Joes opinion on whether or not is credible

he basically makes a statement about only having your name on the trophy if he won it

regardless, i expect you to either twist this again, ignore it, or delete it.

:)

Dave H said...

The final proof, were it needed, that some people will argue the toss about anything

If you'd have heard the exchange it would have been obvious what Joe meant but I really can't be bothered to go on about it

Anonymous said...

i think i am entitle to post a reply when you say something thats not correct


and yeah, obviously i wasnt able to hear the conversation, so i posted comments on what you actually typed

yeah, on topic and not impolite.

seems youre just more than a bit touchy when someone questions what you typed.

hegeland from TSF said...

At anonymous: Stop arguing because you're only embarrasing yourself. It's obvious what Joe meant and I'm sure everyone except you understood that. End of.

Anonymous said...

i love it when folk say end of.

aka

"what i say is correct, so dont reply"

Anonymous said...

also, for the record i am sure Dave knows i am winding him up and he also doesnt need backup on his own site (from his own fans)

hegeland from TSF said...

I wish you best of luck in your hunt for people to start pointless arguments with on the internet.

Anonymous said...

thanks

Anonymous said...

After Allen's victory he was interviewed in front of the board with previous winners listed. Clearly visible was 1952 Fred Davis.

Anonymous said...

please delete the pointless irritating comments on this thread

Anonymous said...

where can i buy a t-shirt please?

Dave H said...

I'm sorry the way things have gone on here

I'll be rethinking the blog/comments situation after the World Championship

Betty Logan said...

Please don't turn off anonymous posting, the above poster is hardly Hitler!

I don't like all this re-writing history business. Joe Johnson couldn't put it better, and as someone who is often demeaned as the "worst" world champion he probably sympathises with Lindrum the most. As they say you can only beat what is "put before you", and that is all that counts as far as winning titles go.

SupremeSnooker.com said...

Of course Horace Lindrum's win should be acknowleged.
If the Wikipedia entry is correct, there were in fact only two entrants in the entire tournament, making it a farce.
That said, the final was played over the best of 187 frames, with Lindrum winning 94-49. The fact that he had such endurance in him makes him a worthy champion in my book!
Compare that to the unofficial World Championship, where everybody else played. Fred Davis beat Walter Donaldson 38-35 in a best of 73 frames match, less than half as long!
The kids don't know they're born these days! (That's a joke, before anyone starts posting nasty comments).

Sparky said...

Why not compare the situation with the ongoing World Championship in Ice Hockey (OK, most of you brits don't know what that is, but anyway... :)

The Ice Hockey WCH is played right now in Switzerland. Meanwhile, all the best Ice Hockey players in the world are in North America, concluding the NHL season by playing for the Stanley Cup.

But no-one would dream of saying that "This is not the World Championships, because all the best players aren't in it!". If you win the trophy, you are the world champion. If the other players choose not to participate, it's their problem.

Why should Lindrum be punished for the fact that most of the other players chose to play the World Matchplay instead?

He might not have been the best player in the world that year, but he is certainly the world champion!

hegeland from TSF said...

Well, if Lindrum was crowned world champion back then despite not facing any of the best players in the world, you might say the amateur world championship is the real world championship these days. The one they are playing in sheffield right now is hardly anything more than a members only tournament with lots of price money.

Sparky said...

Isn't it more fair to say that the tournament which is called the "World Championship" IS the World Championship?

And, yes, a sport can have more than one World Championship: Under 19, Seniors, Amateurs, Juniors, Over 40, Professionals, Mixed etc, etc.

hegeland from TSF said...

Well the IBSF World Snooker Championship is the proper World Championship in the sense that it's 'built up' by all the national Snooker associations around the world. The WPBSA 'world championship' is little more than a commercial tournament for members on the commerical tour. Of course, there is no doubt that all the best players compete on the WPBSA tour, but I just don't think the name 'world championship' is slightly misleading. Anyway, it's all bordering on splitting hairs.

hegeland from TSF said...

oops, remove the word "don't" from the second last sentence above.

hegeland from TSF said...

It appears It is me who is now on the hunt for people to start pointless arguments and debates with on the internet. :oops:

legoland from TSF said...

Thanks SAtW