Talk:Crucible curse

Snooker High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Snooker, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of snooker on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SnookerWikipedia:WikiProject SnookerTemplate:WikiProject SnookerSnooker
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Maybe it's real!

Resolved

– Just talk.

I just saw that Dott lost. I have to think people must be psyching themselves out or something, subconsciously believing it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

encyklopedic tone

I'm not really surprised to find my rewrite of the lede — trimming it of the empty words is a phrase referring to the fact that — quickly reverted, but could Armbrust explain the comment "not encyklopedic tone"? —Tamfang (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was not neutral and changed the meaning of the lead too by the way. The Crucible Curse refers only to first world titles. For example Hendry won it five times in a row. The wording is good as it is. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 19:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not neutral? How? (After referring to Snooker World Championship I saw my error and was about to correct it.) —Tamfang (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think, that the word "failure" is neutral? Your wording is simply ridiculous. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 23:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Well, just to be contrary — no, I didn't think of failure as derogatory in that context, and even if it were, it fairly describes the opposite of success. (Would you object to success in a similar context?) But I certainly won't insist on that word. If I find a phrasing that does not use failure, will you continue to object to trimming the padding? —Tamfang (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know. If you use one from there, than definitely not. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 00:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably because of me :D. I rewrote the lead first, but it still turned out clumsy, so I asked on WP:RDL#Crucible Curse (archive) for a rewrite suggestion. Tamfang was simply bold. However, I don't like his version either, there are much better suggestions. I'll try a rewrite based on them. No such user (talk) 06:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what exactly is "Armbrust"'s problem with my edits? It's not vandalism despite what he/she put in the edit summary. It's no more poorly written than the other version with the line "Since that, Ray Reardon, Steve Davis and Stephen Hendry have won consecutive titles, but not their first ones." Saying the "curse" predates the Crucible is also inaccurate as Joe Davis, Fred Davis and John Pullman all won their first 2 titles consecutively.

That the curse predates the Crucible doesn't mean nobody before could defend it. But since 1969 nobody has done it, which was before the Crucible (1977). Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 14:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be a curse if some players did retain their title before the Crucible days? That's why its the 'Crucible curse'.

'Predates' means "is older than", not "since forever". The Crucible era started in 1974, but the "curse" lasts unbroken at least since 1970, when Jon Spencer failed to retain his first title. Thus, the curse predates the Crucible era. No such user (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The curse does not predate the Crucible as three pre-Crucible champions did retain the title the year after winning it the first time. It's either a curse or its not. Using an arbitrary cut-off point of 1970 doesn't prove anything, as the Championship dates back to 1927. That's why they call it the Crucible Curse and not the World Championship Curse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.9.176 (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really not understand, what "is older than" means? Predates isn't the same as "since forever". And 1970 isn't even arbitrary. 1969 is beginning of the modern era of snooker, and therefore 1970 is the year, where the first World Champion of the modern era defended his title. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 11:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really not understand this topic at all ? Why is it known as the Crucible Curse ? That some champions prior to 1977 also failed to successfully defend their first title is irrelevant because others did break the 'curse', hence no curse at all. To get around that you've come up with this arbitrary "since 1970" line. It's just a date someone has come up with as the start of the "modern era" of snooker. It's meaningless, unlike for instance the move to the Crucible in 1977, a definitive event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.248.134 (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1969 is also definitive, because until 1968 the World Championship was played on a challenge basis, and it reverted to a knock-out tournament this year. The 1969 champion couldn't defend his title in 1970. And please sign you post with four tildes (~~~~). Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 15:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Armbrust wrote: 'until 1968 the World Championship was played on a challenge basis'. Really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1951_World_Snooker_Championship —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.27.155 (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you want to be precise, it was played on a challenge basis between 1964 and 1968. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 21:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 1969 tournament doesn`t look much different to the 1951 championship. So what was the big change in 1969 ? Regardless of that, the bottom line is its the Crucible Curse because it wasn`t really a curse before the move to the Crucible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.248.65 (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what's your point, what do you want? Article now doesn't say it predates the Crucible. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 10:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, let us please resolve this amicably. After all, this is only a half-serious topic, and should be handled more light-heartedly. I don't think that either version is particularly better or worse, although 86.162 omitted some interesting facts. I restored them now, but not in the lead, and gave more context to "The Curse" section. No such user (talk) 09:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Selby-McGill 8:12 (25)

Who's going to do the honors and update the article? Or bet on Selby, perhaps? :) No such user (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, 82.19.40.128 beat me to it! No such user (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the phrase

Can anybody track origins of the phrase? I feel it would be an interesting addition to the article, but it seems to be lost in the mists of time. At a certain point, probably in 1990s, someone must have spotted the pattern and invented the "curse", but it's hard to track who. Does anyone have access to archives of the British press of the 1990s? No such user (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question. International Newsstand archives have a cluster of appearances in 1998 but nothing earlier. To me, that seems quite late. I shall see what else I can turn up. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also checked Newsbank and Times Digital Archive. Again, nothing before 1998, when it's mentioned in pieces about the task facing Ken Doherty. Tellingly, the phrase is completely absent from reports on John Parrott's 1993 attempted defence of the title. So it's looking very much like 1998. It may have been coined by the Daily Telegraph's snooker correspondent John Dee. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Walnuts go kapow. However, I'm concerned that adding this information to the article would be a borderline original research. Or, if we could approach John Dee or someone and inspire them to write a bit about the phrase itself (see https://xkcd.com/978/) :). No such user (talk) 09:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're stuck again. Oxford Dictionaries used to have a service (OWLS - Oxford Word and Language Service) where you could make enquiries like this, but it looks like they quietly discontinued it some years ago. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 11:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy White - World Seniors

Jimmy White won the World Seniors event at the Crucible for the first time in 2019 and then successfully defended in 2020, becoming the first person to defend any maiden title win at the Crucible. Obviously it's not breaking the "curse" but might make a worthy footnote in the article? I'll leave up to others to decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumbaze (talk • contribs) 22:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]