Integrity in sport - How does darts compare?

[ifm]

I feel some GSOD matches will be mentioned soon, oh blimey i forgot the CLOD

Noone mention the fact that the supposed 2 best players in the world shared their prize money for many years. Impacting on the integrity of every final they ever played.

They were quite open about it too.

[Rout]

Did someone say dave prins?

[ifm]

Did someone say dave prins?

Yeah and that person was made to look a right mug

[Murphio]

I feel some GSOD matches will be mentioned soon, oh blimey i forgot the CLOD

Noone mention the fact that the supposed 2 best players in the world shared their prize money for many years. Impacting on the integrity of every final they ever played.

If I play you in a final and before it kicks off we agree to split the winnings whatever the outcome, what incentive do either of us have not to try our best?

[ifm]

I feel some GSOD matches will be mentioned soon, oh blimey i forgot the CLOD

Noone mention the fact that the supposed 2 best players in the world shared their prize money for many years. Impacting on the integrity of every final they ever played.

If I play you in a final and before it kicks off we agree to split the winnings whatever the outcome, what incentive do either of us have not to try our best?

Dear Lord.

[Rout]

I feel some GSOD matches will be mentioned soon, oh blimey i forgot the CLOD

Noone mention the fact that the supposed 2 best players in the world shared their prize money for many years. Impacting on the integrity of every final they ever played.

If I play you in a final and before it kicks off we agree to split the winnings whatever the outcome, what incentive do either of us have not to try our best?

It's no really how it's sold to the audience though, is it? It's hard to imagine that the game would have played out exactly the same had an agreement not been met.

And I'm not sure but I'd wager there's something in the contracts about it being against the rules too.

[Murphio]

I feel some GSOD matches will be mentioned soon, oh blimey i forgot the CLOD

Noone mention the fact that the supposed 2 best players in the world shared their prize money for many years. Impacting on the integrity of every final they ever played.

If I play you in a final and before it kicks off we agree to split the winnings whatever the outcome, what incentive do either of us have not to try our best?

It's no really how it's sold to the audience though, is it? It's hard to imagine that the game would have played out exactly the same had an agreement not been met.

And I'm not sure but I'd wager there's something in the contracts about it being against the rules too.

At that particular time the gap between Priestly and Taylor was quite narrow and it probably suited both of them, with mortgages etc to pay, to take a guaranteed share of the pot. I agree the pressure of there being no incentive probably did alter the mindset of both players. But I honestly don't think it affected the 'integrity' of the game at all - especially where Taylor was concerned given he was/is such an animal for winning darts matches.

[Rout]

I feel some GSOD matches will be mentioned soon, oh blimey i forgot the CLOD

Noone mention the fact that the supposed 2 best players in the world shared their prize money for many years. Impacting on the integrity of every final they ever played.

If I play you in a final and before it kicks off we agree to split the winnings whatever the outcome, what incentive do either of us have not to try our best?

It's no really how it's sold to the audience though, is it? It's hard to imagine that the game would have played out exactly the same had an agreement not been met.

And I'm not sure but I'd wager there's something in the contracts about it being against the rules too.

At that particular time the gap between Priestly and Taylor was quite narrow and it probably suited both of them, with mortgages etc to pay, to take a guaranteed share of the pot. I agree the pressure of there being no incentive probably did alter the mindset of both players. But I honestly don't think it affected the 'integrity' of the game at all - especially where Taylor was concerned given he was/is such an animal for winning darts matches.

It puts a question mark over things. That's enough.

I completely understand why they did it and I don't condemn them in the slightest. I'd have done the same.

I guess what i am trying to say is that darts is the purest game there is in my opinion. But it's not the cleanest. There's a difference.

[Murphio]

Noone mention the fact that the supposed 2 best players in the world shared their prize money for many years. Impacting on the integrity of every final they ever played.

If I play you in a final and before it kicks off we agree to split the winnings whatever the outcome, what incentive do either of us have not to try our best?

It's no really how it's sold to the audience though, is it? It's hard to imagine that the game would have played out exactly the same had an agreement not been met.

And I'm not sure but I'd wager there's something in the contracts about it being against the rules too.

At that particular time the gap between Priestly and Taylor was quite narrow and it probably suited both of them, with mortgages etc to pay, to take a guaranteed share of the pot. I agree the pressure of there being no incentive probably did alter the mindset of both players. But I honestly don't think it affected the 'integrity' of the game at all - especially where Taylor was concerned given he was/is such an animal for winning darts matches.

It puts a question mark over things. That's enough.

I completely understand why they did it and I don't condemn them in the slightest. I'd have done the same.

I guess what i am trying to say is that darts is the purest game there is in my opinion. But it's not the cleanest. There's a difference.

I hear what you are saying but if we are talking here about darts matches which have question marks over their integrity; Priestly and Taylor sharing winnings in (if I recall correctly) winner takes all comps is not the best example. The shared prize pot, I think, did nothing to undermine the integrity of a game between two rivals desperate to beat each other. I also believe this was quite common back then.

[ifm]

Murph not getting that having nothing to play for means you don't care if you win or lose, there's a reason deals are banned in many sports, probably darts too.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Rout]

If I play you in a final and before it kicks off we agree to split the winnings whatever the outcome, what incentive do either of us have not to try our best?

It's no really how it's sold to the audience though, is it? It's hard to imagine that the game would have played out exactly the same had an agreement not been met.

And I'm not sure but I'd wager there's something in the contracts about it being against the rules too.

At that particular time the gap between Priestly and Taylor was quite narrow and it probably suited both of them, with mortgages etc to pay, to take a guaranteed share of the pot. I agree the pressure of there being no incentive probably did alter the mindset of both players. But I honestly don't think it affected the 'integrity' of the game at all - especially where Taylor was concerned given he was/is such an animal for winning darts matches.

It puts a question mark over things. That's enough.

I completely understand why they did it and I don't condemn them in the slightest. I'd have done the same.

I guess what i am trying to say is that darts is the purest game there is in my opinion. But it's not the cleanest. There's a difference.

I hear what you are saying but if we are talking here about darts matches which have question marks over their integrity; Priestly and Taylor sharing winnings in (if I recall correctly) winner takes all comps is not the best example. The shared prize pot, I think, did nothing to undermine the integrity of a game between two rivals desperate to beat each other. I also believe this was quite common back then.

Most definitely not the best example. Under the umbrella of integrity it's not in the same ballpark as cheating, match fixing or drugs, but I still think it puts a question mark over it a bit.

I'd imagine Hearns media team would have a big headache if it transpired selby and higgins had agreed to go halves on the prize money for the world's before the game.

[Murphio]

Murph not getting that having nothing to play for means you don't care if you win or lose, there's a reason deals are banned in many sports, probably darts too.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Nope; I already addressed that point Stents. Taylor and Priestly had a keen rivalry and both were desperate to beat the other. In any case you could actually argue that offering a monetary incentive in the first place affects the integrity of sport more than their being nothing riding on it. Sport in its purest form is about the reward of winning, of being the best in a chosen field. When you offer a monetary prize you are introducing a variable beyond this reward. A person with plenty in the bank, like Taylor, will potentially have less pressure on him than someone who is desperate for the dough. Have a think about it Stents before you reply with more of your total fuckkwittery.

[ifm]

Murph not getting that having nothing to play for means you don't care if you win or lose, there's a reason deals are banned in many sports, probably darts too.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Nope; I already addressed that point Stents. Taylor and Priestly had a keen rivalry and both were desperate to beat the other. In any case you could actually argue that offering a monetary incentive in the first place affects the integrity of sport more than their being nothing riding on it. Sport in its purest form is about the reward of winning, of being the best in a chosen field. When you offer a monetary prize you are introducing a variable beyond this reward. A person with plenty in the bank, like Taylor, will potentially have less pressure on him than someone who is desperate for the dough. Have a think about it Stents before you reply with more of your total fuckkwittery.

No, you made another stupid attempt at defending the indefensible, if what you say were even credible why would savers and deals be banned?
Oh yeah, because they might influence the results you donut.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Rout]

The answer is somewhere in the middle. It's not that neither player would have cared. And it's not that they would have cared as much

But if it takes them down to 95%, isn't that enough?

Probably the only game I think would be completely unaffected by it would be the world final. Such is/was the magnitude of what it meant.

[Murphio]

Murph not getting that having nothing to play for means you don't care if you win or lose, there's a reason deals are banned in many sports, probably darts too.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Nope; I already addressed that point Stents. Taylor and Priestly had a keen rivalry and both were desperate to beat the other. In any case you could actually argue that offering a monetary incentive in the first place affects the integrity of sport more than their being nothing riding on it. Sport in its purest form is about the reward of winning, of being the best in a chosen field. When you offer a monetary prize you are introducing a variable beyond this reward. A person with plenty in the bank, like Taylor, will potentially have less pressure on him than someone who is desperate for the dough. Have a think about it Stents before you reply with more of your total fuckkwittery.

No, you made another stupid attempt at defending the indefensible, if what you say were even credible why would savers and deals be banned?
Oh yeah, because they might influence the results you donut.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

In that case offering money in the first place 'influences' the result Stents you amadan. Using that logic, the whole concept of 'professional' sport undermines the very integrity of it. Playing for nothing other than the prestige, like Priestley and Taylor did, is actually closer to sport in its purest form than introducing a variable which inevitably affects the performance of the competitors. I know you are probably struggling with this Stents so maybe leave reading it back until the fog clears.

[Rout]

Well to go off at a tangent, that's why many people, me included, don't often look at commercialism and capitalism being the bedrock of a sport as a good thing.

[ifm]

Murph not getting that having nothing to play for means you don't care if you win or lose, there's a reason deals are banned in many sports, probably darts too.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Nope; I already addressed that point Stents. Taylor and Priestly had a keen rivalry and both were desperate to beat the other. In any case you could actually argue that offering a monetary incentive in the first place affects the integrity of sport more than their being nothing riding on it. Sport in its purest form is about the reward of winning, of being the best in a chosen field. When you offer a monetary prize you are introducing a variable beyond this reward. A person with plenty in the bank, like Taylor, will potentially have less pressure on him than someone who is desperate for the dough. Have a think about it Stents before you reply with more of your total fuckkwittery.

No, you made another stupid attempt at defending the indefensible, if what you say were even credible why would savers and deals be banned?
Oh yeah, because they might influence the results you donut.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

In that case offering money in the first place 'influences' the result Stents you amadan. Using that logic, the whole concept of 'professional' sport undermines the very integrity of it. Playing for nothing other than the prestige, like Priestley and Taylor did, is actually closer to sport in its purest form than introducing a variable which inevitably affects the performance of the competitors. I know you are probably struggling with this Stents so maybe leave reading it back until the fog clears.

You and Garry Really are the stereotypical thick Irish aren't you?
I'm astonished you manage to feed and water yourselves.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[BlueSpark]

Players split for years, Bristow, Lowe, Jocky were all at it.
Used to be part and parcel of the game.
Not so any more.

[ifm]

Players split for years, Bristow, Lowe, Jocky were all at it.
Used to be part and parcel of the game.
Not so any more.

I don't doubt the first part though savers are still a big part of the game today.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[BlueSpark]

Players split for years, Bristow, Lowe, Jocky were all at it.
Used to be part and parcel of the game.
Not so any more.

I don't doubt the first part though savers are still a big part of the game today.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Have you read Lowes autobiography?
He was at it with everyone.
Bristow also wrote that he stopped splitting with John, just before he weighed in with the 9 darter.
Apparently he was gutted.
Always thought it would have been prize money for the tournament winnings split, not personal achievement prizes. However, Lowe said Eric had fucked up, so I guess he would have given him something.