What I don't understand is this: The Singularity Theorems already assume the existence of a trapped surface (and by implication, of a marginally outer trapped surface, i.e. an apparent horizon, i.e. a black hole) and then conclude that there must be a singularity inside.
Experimentally, though, we know absolutely nothing about this and the recent black hole-related discoveries (gravitational waves, Event Horizon Telescope) can certainly not be seen as a proof of the existence of singularities, either.
Now the Nobel Prize committee says that the discovery is actually
> “for the discovery that black hole formation is a robust prediction of the general theory of relativity.”
But this has virtually nothing to do with the most famous piece of work by Penrose, i.e. the Singularity Theorems.
I believe your point is valid. If the universe ends in big crunch there may also be insufficient proper time to form a singularity. People often confuse event horizons for singularities, partly because of Penrose's work. :) I think Penrose has made many contributions worthy of recognition, though I am not sure Nobel committee press releases are the best place to look for them.
